On Wednesday 12 June 2002 16.18, Billy Biggs wrote:
[...]
>   But that's sort of the thought behind ttrk: be a useful hardware
> sequencer.  I can't stand piano roll views, they just don't make
> sense for the music I'm writing.  I usually write electronic dance
> music where I want to see everything that happens on one beat all
> at once,

There *are* piano rolls that will allow you to view and edit multiple 
tracks at a time, but as you might guess, it doesn't work half as 
well as it sounds at first.

And then we have controller data editing... *aargh!*


> and it is _essential_ that I be able to edit the music as
> it's playing: start looping one pattern and tweak it until I like
> it.

I do that sometimes as well - but obviously, there's a lot of jumping 
between tracks when doing it with a traditional GUI sequencer. *heh*


> Different styles for different types of music really.

I dunno... I do what I feel like WRT style and sound, and I don't 
like applications that try to prevent me from mixing different ways 
of working. Different tools for different jobs - but that doesn't 
mean you're supposed to use a single tool for each song. :-)


> I also
> think it's because when I started writing music, it was using
> either a tracker or a hardware sequencer (at the time the Roland
> MV-30).

That's quite possible - but OTOH, I started out with trackers, 
eventually got into GUI sequencers, and then couldn't really go back. 
Initially, I had major problems doing any real work in a GUI 
sequencer, but now it's the other way around...


//David

.- M A I A -------------------------------------------------.
|      Multimedia Application Integration Architecture      |
| A Free/Open Source Plugin API for Professional Multimedia |
`---------------------------> http://www.linuxdj.com/maia/ -'
.- David Olofson -------------------------------------------.
| Audio Hacker - Open Source Advocate - Singer - Songwriter |
`-------------------------------------> http://olofson.net -'

Reply via email to