Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1.chuqui 4/7/84; site apple.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!dual!apple!mark From: mark@apple.UUCP (Mark Lentczner) Newsgroups: net.music.synth Subject: New Topic: Digital Sequencer Ruminations... Message-ID: <34825@apple.UUCP> Date: Mon, 16-Sep-85 16:45:43 EDT Article-I.D.: apple.34825 Posted: Mon Sep 16 16:45:43 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 19-Sep-85 05:45:42 EDT References: <1152@vax1.fluke.UUCP> <1302@cwruecmp.UUCP> Distribution: net.music.synth Organization: Apple Education Research Group, Cupertino CA Lines: 31 [] Here's some feul for thought: Why is it that Synthesizer manufacturers always make their digital sequencers work "just like a n-track tape recorder". They ever use it as a selling point. I would much prefer to use the storage and abilities of the digital sequencers in ways that I could never do with a tape recorder.: loops of different things at different lenghts, with varying speed perhaps, entries and exits that aren't possible with tape (easily). I wonder just how wonderful a sequencer could be if we all just stopped thinking of it as a digital tape machine and start playing with its special properties and abilities. Anyone else feel this way about sequencers? About anything else? I generally find that I hate being forced to think about new music equipment in terms of old music equip. New instruments have new properties and I want to work with those, not how well they can emulate old ones (if I need the functions of a tape machine I will gladly use one , it works very well in this capacity). Do other people feel this way? Can we get synth manufactures to feel this way? Am I in outerspace? -mark lentczner "All views are from me or outerspace..." -- --Mark Lentczner Apple Computer UUCP: {nsc, dual, voder, ios}!apple!mark CSNET: mark@Apple.CSNET