OSC replacement for MIDI

[Jeff Glatt]

Here's my idea for an OSC-based replacement for MIDI. (Actually, only the
part that concerns sound generation. The sequencer stuff will go under a
separate /SEQ namespace, and be described in a separate document). This
is loosely based upon the SYN namespace by Fabian Ehrentraud.

http://home.roadrunner.com/~jgglatt/OSC_Synth/osc_synth.htm
_______________________________________________
OSC_dev mailing list
OSC_dev@...
http://lists.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/osc_dev

[Gaspard Bucher]

I will read your full article when I get more time.

I just went through your ideas on note representations. I think the
choice of using Hz representation for note hights is not so good.

It's hard to read the relation between 260.74 and 347.65. It's easier
when you write 60 and 64.9804. Any reader can say that there are
"nearly 5" equal tones: it's a special fourth (pythagorean in this
example).

And this is true for 61 and 65.9804 or 100 and 104.9804.

Hz is unusable in practice. I've never seen a musician talk in Hz.

Gaspard

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Jeff Glatt <jgglatt@...> wrote:

> Here's my idea for an OSC-based replacement for MIDI. (Actually, only the
> part that concerns sound generation. The sequencer stuff will go under a
> separate /SEQ namespace, and be described in a separate document). This
> is loosely based upon the SYN namespace by Fabian Ehrentraud.
>
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~jgglatt/OSC_Synth/osc_synth.htm
> _______________________________________________
> OSC_dev mailing list
> OSC_dev@...
> http://lists.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/osc_dev
>

_______________________________________________
OSC_dev mailing list
OSC_dev@...
http://lists.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/osc_dev

[Jeff Glatt]

> I've never seen a musician talk in Hz.

Typically not. That's why, if your tuning uses the western
12 tone scale, your software presents the pitch as a
"note name". For example, instead of displaying 440 Hz,
you display A4 (ie, the A key in the fourth octave). Or if
you're using some sort of "graphical manuscript" as your
note display, you draw the A note above middle C.

This is how western musicians designate pitches -- either
by note name, or by musical manuscript. Any other
representation is not appropriate for a musician using
western scales, as this is the standard.
_______________________________________________
OSC_dev mailing list
OSC_dev@...
http://lists.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/osc_dev

[Jamie Bullock]

Hi Jeff,


On 29 Jan 2009, at 23:27, Jeff Glatt wrote:

> Here's my idea for an OSC-based replacement for MIDI. (Actually,  
> only the
> part that concerns sound generation. The sequencer stuff will go  
> under a
> separate /SEQ namespace, and be described in a separate document).  
> This
> is loosely based upon the SYN namespace by Fabian Ehrentraud.
>
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~jgglatt/OSC_Synth/osc_synth.htm

I did a similar thing a few years back. It was for a DX7 namespace,  
but it includes MIDI stuff. You can find it in the PDF at: http://wiki.integralive.org/modules:dx7#dx7_namespace 
. Maybe there's something useful in there.

Looking back, I would question the utility of trying to use OSC as a  
replacement for MIDI. What is the purpose of this? MIDI and OSC are  
separate and very different protocols each with its own strengths and  
weaknesses. If you need MIDI, why not just use MIDI?

Jamie

_______________________________________________
OSC_dev mailing list
OSC_dev@...
http://lists.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/osc_dev

[Gaspard Bucher]

I am a musician and I have found myself coding using midi note numbers
in scripts for repetitive music. "60" means nothing, but is learnable
when you really need to dig this deep. "60.5" is a quarter tone,
that's easy too. 234.7 438.9 will never mean anything useful in
musical terms and it's not at all backward compatible.

Gaspard

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Jeff Glatt <jgglatt@...> wrote:

>> I've never seen a musician talk in Hz.
>
> Typically not. That's why, if your tuning uses the western
> 12 tone scale, your software presents the pitch as a
> "note name". For example, instead of displaying 440 Hz,
> you display A4 (ie, the A key in the fourth octave). Or if
> you're using some sort of "graphical manuscript" as your
> note display, you draw the A note above middle C.
>
> This is how western musicians designate pitches -- either
> by note name, or by musical manuscript. Any other
> representation is not appropriate for a musician using
> western scales, as this is the standard.
> _______________________________________________
> OSC_dev mailing list
> OSC_dev@...
> http://lists.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/osc_dev
>

_______________________________________________
OSC_dev mailing list
OSC_dev@...
http://lists.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/osc_dev

[Jeff Glatt]

>use OSC as a  replacement for MIDI. What is the purpose of this?

To (hopefully) do what MIDI did before OSC (and OSC has yet to do).
And that is -- to create one standardized set of messages to remotely
"play" musical devices from different manufacturers.

> why not just use MIDI?

I _do_ use MIDI, every day. I even have a long-standing website
dedicated to it.

http://home.roadrunner.com/~jgglatt

Nevertheless, as much as I have found MIDI useful, that doesn't mean
it's the be-all, end-all protocol for controlling musical devices.

> MIDI and OSC are very different protocols each with
> its own strengths and weaknesses.

Well frankly, the only "strength" that MIDI has over OSC today, is that
MIDI has one standardized set of messages to remotely "play" musical
devices from different manufacturers. OSC doesn't.

But that doesn't mean that OSC has to have this "weakness" forever. The
whole point is to address this "weakness" in OSC.
_______________________________________________
OSC_dev mailing list
OSC_dev@...
http://lists.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/osc_dev

[Jeff Glatt]

> I am a musician

Me too. I gig professionally every week (and I'm doing 2 gigs today, in
fact).
I mostly do solo work, but have also worked with a number of other
musicians.

> found myself coding using midi note numbers in scripts
> for repetitive music.

Yeah, I've done that too (well, not repetitive music because that stuff
bores me to tears -- but in trying to replicate more "adventurous" music
that sounds like it was played by human musicians), because I'm also a
programmer. But out of the many musicians I've worked with, an
incredibly, incredibly small percentage work with any sort of "music
programming language".

The vast majority of musicians don't "script" music. They "play" it, via
a traditional musical instrument. That's not to say that it's "wrong" or
"bad" to "script music". That's just to say that, when you design a tool
like that, then you're not designing it for the vast majority of musicians
to use. Nothing wrong with that. But I'm talking about something that
is going to be useful to most musicians. And that means a user
interface that doesn't show frequency nor cents nor any other
"scientific" representation of pitch, but rather, uses standard note
names like A4 or presents notes drawn upon manuscript. (And frankly,
you'd be surprised how many musicians don't even read manuscript.
So you _must_ be able to tell them the note name).

For example, a musician using a sequencer program such as Cakewalk
or Cubase will typically use the manuscript display to edit music. But even
the alternative displays such as the event list, or piano roll, don't show
MIDI note numbers. They show note name.

>  "60" means nothing, but is learnable

If I told a musician to play MIDI Note Number 60, most of them would
look at me like I was crazy. If I told them to play a pitch that's 100 cents
above middle C, the typical reply would be "What??? You mean I'm
getting paid a dollar for each note I play on this gig??".

It's either note name, or you hand them a manuscript if they read music.

> "60.5" is a quarter tone, that's easy too

What??? I've never heard a musician refer to a quarter note as 60.5.

> 234.7 438.9 will never mean anything useful in musical terms

Well, it _does_ mean something very, very useful in musical terms. It's
just that a typical musician doesn't know what you're talking about.

> it's not at all backward compatible.

Huh??? How can you have a pitch that doesn't have a frequency?? The
frequency _is_ the single thing that ties all tuning methods, and forms of
music, together. Nothing else does. (ie, Cents are really meant to be used
with a 12 tone western scale -- not non-western scales).

_______________________________________________
OSC_dev mailing list
OSC_dev@...
http://lists.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/osc_dev

[Gaspard Bucher]

When I ta

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Jeff Glatt <jgglatt@...> wrote:

>> I am a musician
>
> Me too. I gig professionally every week (and I'm doing 2 gigs today, in
> fact).
> I mostly do solo work, but have also worked with a number of other
> musicians.
>
>> found myself coding using midi note numbers in scripts
>> for repetitive music.
>
> Yeah, I've done that too (well, not repetitive music because that stuff
> bores me to tears -- but in trying to replicate more "adventurous" music
> that sounds like it was played by human musicians), because I'm also a
> programmer. But out of the many musicians I've worked with, an
> incredibly, incredibly small percentage work with any sort of "music
> programming language".
>
> The vast majority of musicians don't "script" music. They "play" it, via
> a traditional musical instrument. That's not to say that it's "wrong" or
> "bad" to "script music". That's just to say that, when you design a tool
> like that, then you're not designing it for the vast majority of musicians
> to use. Nothing wrong with that. But I'm talking about something that
> is going to be useful to most musicians. And that means a user
> interface that doesn't show frequency nor cents nor any other
> "scientific" representation of pitch, but rather, uses standard note
> names like A4 or presents notes drawn upon manuscript. (And frankly,
> you'd be surprised how many musicians don't even read manuscript.
> So you _must_ be able to tell them the note name).
>
> For example, a musician using a sequencer program such as Cakewalk
> or Cubase will typically use the manuscript display to edit music. But even
> the alternative displays such as the event list, or piano roll, don't show
> MIDI note numbers. They show note name.
>
>>  "60" means nothing, but is learnable
>
> If I told a musician to play MIDI Note Number 60, most of them would
> look at me like I was crazy. If I told them to play a pitch that's 100 cents
> above middle C, the typical reply would be "What??? You mean I'm
> getting paid a dollar for each note I play on this gig??".
>
> It's either note name, or you hand them a manuscript if they read music.
>
>> "60.5" is a quarter tone, that's easy too
>
> What??? I've never heard a musician refer to a quarter note as 60.5.
>
>> 234.7 438.9 will never mean anything useful in musical terms
>
> Well, it _does_ mean something very, very useful in musical terms. It's
> just that a typical musician doesn't know what you're talking about.
>
>> it's not at all backward compatible.
>
> Huh??? How can you have a pitch that doesn't have a frequency?? The
> frequency _is_ the single thing that ties all tuning methods, and forms of
> music, together. Nothing else does. (ie, Cents are really meant to be used
> with a 12 tone western scale -- not non-western scales).
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSC_dev mailing list
> OSC_dev@...
> http://lists.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/osc_dev
>

When I talk about "backward compatibility" I mean it in the field
where a midi replacement would be used: to connect a "control device"
(keyboard, controller) to an "instrument" (live, logic, reason,
max/msp, supercollider, etc). In this context, notes represented as
floats (60, 59.9804) are much closer to what the previous generation
of these controllers were doing then raw frequencies so the adaptation
to current hardware would be lightweight.

G.
_______________________________________________
OSC_dev mailing list
OSC_dev@...
http://lists.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/osc_dev

[werteplus]

I just went through your ideas on note representations. I think the
choice of using Hz representation for note hights is not so good.

Hz shouldn't be the only possible way, but it should be definately possible. what if you e.g. use a note from a synthesizer as an LFO or something? then Hz would be appropriate again.

other than that: for notes i'd recommend 4 ways to get every need covered:
a) frequency
b) cent offset + a general base frequency
c) ratio + a general base frequency
d) note number (retuneable to some value of a, b or c)

the tuning standard should accept .scl files (see scala tuning standard: http://www.huygens-fokker.org/scala/scl_format.html). note that in the scala tuning standard, there is NO base frequency specified for good reasons. so the synth must have some method to adjust that (preferably dynamic at playtime with welldefined semantics for already playing notes).

greetings,
fabb

_______________________________________________
OSC_dev mailing list
OSC_dev@...
http://lists.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/osc_dev

[Jamie Bullock]

Hi Jeff,

On 30 Jan 2009, at 17:28, Jeff Glatt wrote:

>> use OSC as a  replacement for MIDI. What is the purpose of this?
>
> To (hopefully) do what MIDI did before OSC (and OSC has yet to do).
> And that is -- to create one standardized set of messages to remotely
> "play" musical devices from different manufacturers.
>
>> why not just use MIDI?
>
> I _do_ use MIDI, every day. I even have a long-standing website
> dedicated to it.
>
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~jgglatt
>
> Nevertheless, as much as I have found MIDI useful, that doesn't mean
> it's the be-all, end-all protocol for controlling musical devices.
>
>> MIDI and OSC are very different protocols each with
>> its own strengths and weaknesses.
>
> Well frankly, the only "strength" that MIDI has over OSC today, is  
> that
> MIDI has one standardized set of messages to remotely "play" musical
> devices from different manufacturers. OSC doesn't.
>
> But that doesn't mean that OSC has to have this "weakness" forever.  
> The
> whole point is to address this "weakness" in OSC.

Sorry, I didn't read your proposal properly. You're doing an OSC-based  
equivalent to MIDI, i.e. a note-domain address space for OSC and *not*  
MIDI messages encoded as OSC messages, which is what my DX7 namespace  
was all about.

I agree there's a need for what you're doing -- I wonder if anyone  
else has looked at it. Jamoma?

Jamie



_______________________________________________
OSC_dev mailing list
OSC_dev@...
http://lists.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/osc_dev

[Jeff Glatt]

> *not*  MIDI messages encoded as OSC messages

Right. We've already got MIDI and it's an international,
commercially successful standard. But it's long-in-the-tooth,
can no longer be practically expanded, has some problems
that musicians have been laboriously working around for
years now, and it's time to replace it. I love the idea of MIDI.
I really do. It has proven to be a wonderful compositional
tool for me. But, it's time to retire it.

It _will_ be replaced, but whether that replacement becomes
something not quite so different (like RTP-MIDI or "high
definition MIDI") or something like OSC remains to be seen.
Whether OSC fails to become that replacement (and is mostly
consigned to being a "scripting language" for Abelton products,
and some "visual gesture systems" used by colleges) will be
largely determined by whether there exists a standardized set
of OSC messages to control musical instruments. They can't
come if you don't build it.
_______________________________________________
OSC_dev mailing list
OSC_dev@...
http://lists.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/osc_dev

[Jeff Glatt]

> in a midi replacement,  notes represented as floats (60, 59.9804)
> are much closer to what the previous generation of these
> controllers were doing

Huh?? MIDI doesn't even support floats. _All_ MIDI data is 8-bit
integers. (Well, actually data bytes are 7-bit because only a status
byte sets the high bit). Specifically, MIDI uses a 7-bit integer to
represent a "note pitch". It's an abstraction for frequency. In other
words, MIDI note number 60 is supposed to produce a pitch at
261.63 Hertz. MIDI note number 61 is supposed to produce a
pitch at 277.18 Hertz. MIDI assumes a 12 tone western scale. (See
my chart at http://home.roadrunner.com/~jgglatt/tutr/notefreq.htm).
It's true that most professional synths now offer the facility to
change the tuning. For example, you can set up the tuning for an
arabic scale on a Roland Fantom X. But that's a non-standard tuning,
and MIDI knows nothing about that. If you send MIDI note 61 to a
Fantom X tuned to an arabic scale, as well as a standard GM unit,
you will have a godawful noise that most people will not recognize
as music).

If you send a MIDI message to play note 61, and it _doesn't_
produce a pitch at 277.18 Hertz, then you've got a broken synth (or
something that is deliberately tuned non-standard).

What a MIDI synth does when it receives that note number of 61 is
say "Aha. That's a frequency of 277.18 Hertz in a 12 tone western
scale. That's what I'm going to set my oscillator rate to (or the
waveform sent to my DAC, if using digital audio waveforms)". Well,
actually it will probably take the reciprocal of the frequency, because
the period is usually what the hardware wants. Same thing.

Frequency is absolutely backward compatible with all current
musical devices, because that's what every single abstraction (like
MIDI note numbers, or cents) gets eventually broken down to in a
synth. A synth _can't_ play a pitch unless it knows the frequency (or
period -- same thing really). No way. It's not possible. Whether
someone tells the frequency directly, or the synth translates some
abstraction back into a frequency, it _must_ have that freq.

I think what you're arguing is that you don't want to show a freq to
an enduser. Fine. You don't have to (and you _shouldn't). You take
the frequency and translate it to a MIDI note (using the chart shown
above), or more appropriately for a musician, translate it to a pitch
name such as C#4 (or draw that note on a manuscript). The fact that
the /SYNTH/NOTE/ON message I propose specifies freq has no
bearing whatsoever upon what manner you present that info to an
enduser. (But for musicians,_ do_ translate it into a note name. Be
nice to your musician friends).
_______________________________________________
OSC_dev mailing list
OSC_dev@...
http://lists.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/osc_dev

[Joe Malloch]

some problems:

why not  allow multiple perspectives and units? (for example /hz AND
/midinote) We're not running out of namespaces...

definitely use floats for note number, pan, pitch bend, etc. and
normalized representations where useful (panning for example). If
people are worried about whether or not "musicians" will understand
frequencies in Hz or fractional note numbers, how is this "musician"
going to feel about a pan value of  -1098473647 or a "volume offset"
of 465758 ???? Use floats! (and dB for volume stuff)

definitely look at Jamoma for discussion of multiple units and representations

check out SpatDIF for discussion of presenting panning and position

there is a technical problem with the description of
/SYNTH/NOTE/PITCH, since it would add a constant to all note's
frequencies. If you add 20Hz to 20Hz you just transposed up an octave,
but 1500Hz->1520Hz is ~23 cents

In my opinion (an many others) MIDI is way too keyboard-centric. What
if I don't want to play "notes" but instead to just control some
source and filter parameters continuously? Note-on messages are a
terrible way to represent this kind of interaction.

Joe

Joseph Malloch
Input Devices and Music Interaction Laboratory
Schulich School of Music - McGill University
email: joseph.malloch@...
web: http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~mallochj
_______________________________________________
OSC_dev mailing list
OSC_dev@...
http://lists.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/osc_dev

[Angelo Fraietta-2]

Jeff Glatt wrote:

>>*not*  MIDI messages encoded as OSC messages
>
>
> Right. We've already got MIDI and it's an international,
> commercially successful standard. But it's long-in-the-tooth,
> can no longer be practically expanded, has some problems
> that musicians have been laboriously working around for
> years now, and it's time to replace it. I love the idea of MIDI.
> I really do. It has proven to be a wonderful compositional
> tool for me. But, it's time to retire it.

I disagree. I believe MIDI can be expanded.
Have ar read of the following paper presented at NIME last year
http://www.smartcontroller.com.au/publications/Nime2008.pdf

--
Dr Angelo Fraietta
A.Eng, A.Mus.A, BA(Hons), Ph.D.

PO Box 859
Hamilton NSW 2303

Home Page


http://www.smartcontroller.com.au/

There are those who seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge - that is
CURIOSITY
There are those who seek knowledge to be known by others - that is VANITY
There are those who seek knowledge in order to serve - that is LOVE
     Bernard of Clairvaux (1090 - 1153)

_______________________________________________
OSC_dev mailing list
OSC_dev@...
http://lists.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/osc_dev

[Roger Dannenberg]

> Frequency is absolutely backward compatible with all current
> musical devices, because that's what every single abstraction (like
> MIDI note numbers, or cents) gets eventually broken down to in a
> synth. A synth _can't_ play a pitch unless it knows the frequency (or
> period -- same thing really). No way. It's not possible.
I hope everyone here realizes this is a simplification -- not every
sound is periodic,  and even many pitched tones are not periodic (bells
are a good example). And even if you consider only the lowest sinusoidal
component, it may not have the same frequency as the fundamental of
another sound with the same perceived pitch. I could go on, but you get
the idea. Pitch is perceptual, frequency is physical, and the
correspondence is not always simple.

-Roger

_______________________________________________
OSC_dev mailing list
OSC_dev@...
http://lists.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/osc_dev

[Jeff Glatt]

> not every sound is periodic,  and even many pitched tones are not periodic
> (bells are a good example).

I'm not talking about "periodic". I'm talking about a frequency or period.
It's
what electronic circuits such as an oscillator need to know in order to
produce
sound, or what some circuitry feeding a DAC digital audio samples needs to
know in order to play the waveform at the correct rate.

It doesn't matter whether the frequency changes, for example controlled by
an
LFO (at its own, typically much lower freq). It doesn't matter if you have
a whole bunch of oscillators, each running at a different frequency, summed
together (ie, to produce harmonics, or even white noise) or whatever. Every
sound generator requires at least one frequency (or period. Most hardware is
designed to use the period). Maybe there is some place in the universe were
sound occurs without frequencies. But not here on earth.

> And even if you consider only the lowest sinusoidal
> component, it may not have the same frequency as the fundamental of
> another sound with the same perceived pitch.

Synths don't "perceive pitch". They say "what frequency (or period) do you
want me to run this oscillator at, or interpolate and feed digital audio
samples
to this DAC at?". They can't produce _any_ sound until you give them that
frequency or period. Nothing. Nada. No sound. <Chirp, chirp -- crickets>

We're not talking about humans. We're talking about machines. Perceptions
don't matter. Just the frequencies (or periods).

_______________________________________________
OSC_dev mailing list
OSC_dev@...
http://lists.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/osc_dev

[Jeff Glatt]

>i'd recommend 4 ways to get every need covered

4 different ways to do the same thing? You don't happen to be
a government employee, fabb?

But seriously... too complicated. There's no reason to make every
single product handle 4 possible formats that may be thrown at it, and
to translate every single one to the one it wants. I chose the one
common denominator -- the most efficient, most versatile, and most
basic. (And the one that allows any tuning, completely transparently).
Frequency. (Although I'd be just fine with "period" instead. Instead).

If you don't like frequency, then you just translate it... once. You don't
have to worry about also translating 2 additional formats you don't want
either. And you don't have to try to figure out what someone else wants
when you generate a message. Everyone gets the same thing. You don't
have to say "Device 1, do you want a cent offset? No? You want a note
number? Ok. Device 2 do you want a scala ratio? No? You want a
frequency? Ok, hold on, I have to take this cent offset I just received, and
convert it to the scala ratio I want. Oh damn. Someone just threw a note
number at me. I've got to translate... Oh hell, who's the wise guy who just
gave me a frequency? I forget -- who ordered the pastrami on rye? And
who has the salad with low fat dressing?. Oh the hell with this. I always
wanted to be dancer instead.".

As you'll note, I also jettisoned all of the other "If T, this means it's
this
format, but if F, this means it's the same thing in some other format"
stuff you had in your original proposal. It needed to be more uniform
as a standard.

Everyone gets the same thing. That's what a standard is at its core.

_______________________________________________
OSC_dev mailing list
OSC_dev@...
http://lists.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/osc_dev

[Nick Rothwell]

On 30 Jan 2009, at 21:44, Jeff Glatt wrote:

> It's an abstraction for frequency. In other
> words, MIDI note number 60 is supposed to produce a pitch at
> 261.63 Hertz.

I'm not sure that's true, and I'm not sure as a statement it makes  
sense.

I'd need to check the MIDI spec., but I suspect (and please, by all  
means prove me wrong) that MIDI note event 60 doesn't say anything  
about frequency; it just informs a keyboard or module to remotely  
press down the middle C key.

Any interesting tone will have large numbers of harmonics, many of  
which will be detuned, so we can only really talk about the  
"frequency" of a triggered note in terms of the fundamental or some  
main harmonic. When it comes to samplers and drum machines, there is  
no tonal semantics attached to the MIDI note numbers at all; they're  
just (velocity-sensitive) switches.

        -- N.


Nick Rothwell / Cassiel.com Limited
www.cassiel.com
www.myspace.com/cassieldotcom
www.last.fm/music/cassiel
www.reverbnation.com/cassiel
www.linkedin.com/in/cassiel
www.loadbang.net



_______________________________________________
OSC_dev mailing list
OSC_dev@...
http://lists.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/osc_dev

[john ffitch]

What DID happen to ZIPI?
==John ffitch
_______________________________________________
OSC_dev mailing list
OSC_dev@...
http://lists.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/osc_dev

[werteplus]

When it comes to samplers and drum machines, there is
no tonal semantics attached to the MIDI note numbers at all; they're
just (velocity-sensitive) switches.

Nick Rothwell / Cassiel.com Limited

OMG, i totally forgot about this one. that would mark a BIG argument in the "voice vs key" debate for using keys.

_______________________________________________
OSC_dev mailing list
OSC_dev@...
http://lists.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/osc_dev