> >
> > 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.
