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