Faza_TCM
jimfogle
The next generation of MIDI is arriving NOW! New specifications were released at 2018 NAMM. The next generation is called MIDI-CI and is an addition to the original MIDI 1.0 specification. That means anything based on MIDI-CI will be backward compatible with MIDI 1.0. You can read more about MIDI-CI here: https://www.midi.org/articles/midi-manufacturers-association-mma-adopts-midi-capability-inquiry-midi-ci-specification.
Now this is excellent news!
My previous comment on the datedness of MIDI mostly had to do with the word sizes, which are all too reflective of a bygone era. Hell, I remember 80s computing well enough, but I can't think of anything other than MIDI that still seems stuck in that era.
Looking over the next-gen protocol specs, I'm feeling not a bit hyped. The big question is: how soon will we see some implementations?
Now this is HUGE News, and in my opinion the most significant step forward since the introduction of the GM spec.
A GIANT leap forward expanding and cementing MIDI'S place in not only music production, but paving the way for easy integration of many technologies we never dreamed of doing or playing well together as on one team.
In simply laymen's terms, where GM defined a certain list of common instruments and parameters to be used, MIDI-CI greatly streamlines and expands at the same time, and simplifies the whole process by having all MIDI devices and software identify, shake hands and introduce themselves to each other before the show even begins.
This is a result of what happens when the great minds of Roland, Yamaha, and Korg get together and stop the politics of competing with each other, and put their heads together to come up with a solution that helps EVERYBODY!
And making everyone's life sooooooooooooo much easier.
And what's really hilarious about it is, the typical DAW user won't even know it's happening.
Most DAW users don't have any idea or even a clue as to what MIDI does and how deeply ingrained it is into the heart of every DAW, even if the DAW gives you limited to no editing control over it.
Like Pro Tools. Contrary to popular belief, Pro Tools can support the most robust MIDI editing suites,
the best your money can buy! And the more you add on, the more you pay and the better it gets. That's just Apple's and AVID's logic for survival.
Without MIDI under the hood just like every other DAW ever made, Pro Tools would never had existed, let alone evloved.
As an old school MIDI guy from the 80's starting out learning with Roland's MRC MIDI language using a Roland MC-500 sequencer that didn't even ship with a demo song, I was forced to start on page one of the User Manual, and constantly warned NOT to skip over any single page or chapter until I understood all the steps of control change commands, Program Change commands, and procedures for setting and changing tempo and note resolution, velocity, and after touch, and the very clear definitions and differences between what MIDI "notes" are and what "musical" notes are.
One musical note = at least 5 MIDI notes,= On-Velocity-Key-Resolution-Off.
Using "Pitch Bend" and "Modulation" controllers will easily and quickly send 100's of MIDI notes to one musical note.
And the differences between MIDI "tracks" and MIDI "channels". ONE MIDI=16 MIDI channels.
The Roland MC 500 is a 4 track MIDI sequencer that can run 64 MIDI channels, meaning it can play up to 64 instrument parts, with a maximum of 100,000 MIDI notes per song.
100K MIDI notes may sound like a lot, but you'd be surprised out how fast you can run out of MIDI notes before finishing a 3 minute song if you don't read and understand the chapter on how to create and store "LOOPS" for recurring sections of verse, chorus, bridge sections, etc, an early process which would later become known as using "Cakewalk Groove Clips" in SONAR, which were more often then not, confused with ACID loops to the average SONAR user.
Without a demo to hear the MC 500 sat curiously on the desk, silent and mysterious. But contained a very detailed and complete course in MIDI sequencing in place of a demo. After about a month of sometimes rather frustrating study I started to develop a clear understanding of what went on underneath the hood of a sequencer.
About 2 weeks after that I completed my dissertation for the rather grueling Roland MIDI course.
Note for NOTE and without ever hearing it before, I
step wrote an exacting MIDI performance of Johan Sabastian Bach's
"Little Fugue in G Minor" into the MC 500 specifically optimized for the Casio CZ 1000. It sounded so very real and authentic, I was told by many who actually attended Julliard, that it could be used as a recital to attend Julliard School of Music.
But I, primarily as a rock & roll guitarist had absolutely no intentions of doing so with a mind set of furthering my education into a trained money.
My mind set was, there are only two types of musicians; Imitators and Innovators. And the only reason I pursued MIDI in the first place was to pursue Innovation and escaping a world being forced into sounding like Eric Clapton or Jimi Hendrix.
Roland's reasoning behind the MC 500 being a 4 track sequencer was to give it the power to play 4 hardware synths discretely on their own tracks without colliding or conflicting with each other, whether they were made by Korg, Casio, Roland or whatever. This was very important because the General MIDI (GM) Specification wasn't invented yet.
What made the MC 500 so ultimately powerful is, it didn't need to "understand" the very different commands of proprietary languages of Korg, Casio, or what ever to sequence performances together.
And at the time, at first I must have cursed Roland hourly forcing me to learn all what I thought of as all that boring tedious crap I'll never use. Cursing them night after night, out of anger, but less and less nightly as I started to understand how valuable this knowledge is to know now, and how it can be used in the future, whether I stick with Roland or not
I stand on my belief that
NO OTHER SEQUENCER MANUFACTURER COULD DO THAT BETTER THAN ROLAND! Some of them might have done just as good, but they just did it differently.
And those that didn't struck out early in the game.
Just as I stand on my belief today that THERE IS NO OTHER DAW WITH MORE POWERFUL MIDI SEQUENCING THAN SONAR! Some of them might do it just as good, but just did it differently.
And as to date... Although many have tried through the years, ABSOLUTELY NOBODY has ever proved or presented empirical evidence that ever proves otherwise.
Only opinions, and in my world opinions have absolutely nothing to do with the truth so don't count for much.