Torbj�rn Hervik wrote:
>
> Well, yes, but... If you wanted it a half scale
> higher.... Well, I guess you could use
> groove-function... hmm... But, it must be much easier
> with the draga and drop-stuff of a pc..? I mean, you
> can LOOK at waht you are doing, regarding to
> volumeslides and stuff. Intro's MUST be easier to
> create on a PC..?
Some things are easier w/drag and drop. I found it easier, for
example, to use ACID to make loops than to use my sampler.
But, I had less control, couldn't integrate it well with
the MIDI side, and it wouldn't have worked live. So I
went back to using the sampler.
The rm1x centralizes my setup. Everything is now controllable
live in a way that wasn't possible using the computer, and
that frees me creatively. Personally, I just wasn't as creative
with the computer as I am when I'm playing and manipulating
the sequence, tweaking the knobs etc.
Being able to LOOK at what I'm doing doesn't help much.
I have to HEAR it, and the rm1x does that just as well
as the computer.
There may be some basic psychological differences at work
here, as well: you sound like a visual learner, who wants to see
the big picture from the start, wheras I'm auditory
and like to postpone the big picture until I have
interesting parts to use for it.
>
> --- Sean Morrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev:
> > > >
> > > > on the hardware sequencer -
> > > > * less complicated arrangements
> > > > * more loop orinted
> > > > * less bridges (in the musical sense)
> > > >
> >
> > For me it's just the opposite... I copy a section to
> > another section,
> > then modify the second section, and presto, a
> > bridge...
> > + when I mess the patterns, playing them back, I get
> > arrangement
> > ideas that simply wouldn't occur to me if I arranged
> > them
> > staticly, on a computer screen.
> >
> > > >
> > > > I think it comes down to what kind of learner
> > you
> > > > are - are you visual
> > > > or tactile?
> >
> > Or auditory? On the RM1x, the visual minimalism of
> > the interface
> > lets me concentrate on the sound, rather than
> > "tracks", "icons" etc.
> > Less is More.
> >
> > > > One example would be this...
> > > >
> > > > you just recorded a great synth line... you
> > realize
> > > > you could add some
> > > > great depth to a segment of of that line...
> > > > on a software sequencer I would do this...
> > > >
> > > > 1.duplicate that track with the lead
> > > > 2.assign that track to possibly another synth
> > sound
> > > > or even a horn sound
> > > > 3.delete unwanted note, so you are only dealing
> > with
> > > > accents and
> > > > possibly a few solid bars of notes
> > > > 4.grab all those notes, then raise them a 3rd or
> > 5th
> > > >
> > > > and lastly, you liked that new backing section,
> > so
> > > > you copy/paste it to
> > > > another location in the piece of music where the
> > > > drums drop out, leaving
> > > > you with this variation of your melody...
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Whew! Now, tell me how I could do this on the
> > > > RM1x... I'm sure it's
> > > > possible, but how many steps and trips through
> > the
> > > > Job screens and
> > > > moving through note by note in the Edit
> > screen???
> >
> > Not very many... 2 jobs, 1 trip to the edit screen,
> > and
> > a voice reassignment...and I don't have to scroll
> > around
> > w/ a mouse!
> >
> > I say all this to point out the obvious- it's all
> > down to
> > personal preference. Try them both. Great music
> > can be
> > made either way, or some other way altoegther.
> >
> > -Sean M.
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com
