why MIDI...what am I missing??

  • Thread starter Thread starter mixmkr
  • Start date Start date
mixmkr

mixmkr

we don't need rest!!
ok...so I use midi for my sibeleous notation playback, it's integrated into my roland keyboard workstation, I always record on my DAW with actual .wav files, rather than midi, I don't use midi control of external processors, etc.,...(never felt I needed something that complex...or I could just "record" the changes on another track)..., and I occasionally link a couple of keyboards/modules together for a more 'layered' sound.

What am I missing?? Are there software sequencers that will just smoke my roland keyboard workstation (xp80), that will never make me go back...and soft synths too?? Now that MIDI has been out for 20 years...what else can I constructively do with it that I'm not seeing? I'm leary of 'virtual' tracks, because I want all my tracks ON the computer.

I understand midi tracks, and changing sounds to experiment...but I feel I can make those decisions early on....what else is there?
 
I'd like to hear the answer to this one too. My friend is always using Midi so he'll be able to change sounds later etc., but he spends a LOT of time messing with it. I like to just nail it from the get go and move on. I'll occasionally plug the midi out from a drum machine into the midi in of a keyboard and get some strange and beautiful sounds, but I'm not sure if it's worth all the time learning about it. I'd rather spend that time actually playing and experimenting. He also uses it to correct imperfect (electric) drum beats played by a human, but I would rather just re do it.

who knows..

good topic mix ;)
 
I've started using a lot of MIDI stuff over the last year, and I would have sworn that that would never happen: that I was going to spend my career printing audio tracks like I always used to. It offers a lot of sonic flexibility without causing some of the artifacting you'd get by making extreme EQ moves and the like.

Here are a couple of examples. I'm primarily a drummer, but I play E-drums these days (a Hart Dynamics kit that I use to drive Roland TD-10exp and Alesis DM5 modules). I don't play with the timing of my own performance- what I play is what I play. However, I *can* go back and change from the brass-shelled snare to the wood-shelled, retune the toms and kick to lay better with the key of the song, maybe. I can change cymbals, and shell depths, and basically completely recreate the _sounds_ from the kit well after the performance is in the can, without balling up the performance. And these changes are major, sometimes- more than you can do with EQ and outboard gear.

I can do the same thing with keyboard parts: when I get to the mixdown stage, if a patch just isn't laying properly in the mix, I can just change the patch, rather than having to redo the performance.

It offers a similar level of flexibility to that offered by multitrack recording. If you have enough tracks, you never have to bounce down submixes- which loses your basic tracks and "locks in" the sound of the mix very early on. Using MIDI sequencing can help preserve the ability to make tweeking changes right up until the final mix, and sometimes that can be _very_ useful: we've all bounced the drums to a 2-buss early in tracking, and ended up regretting it...

On the other hand, if you know exactly what you want sonically right from Day 1, you don't need this extra flexibility: just print it and go! I know folks who work like that, but I'm not one of them. Since I primarily work by myself, writing is an exploration, more than a process of knowing exactly what I want. Seems to me that I never end up where I thought I was going at the outset, but that's just me: your mileage may vary.

The downside is that all this flexibility can lead to what I call "analysis paralysis", just as you point out. Sometimes, it *is* better to just commit the sounds and see what happens. You can get yourself into massive tweek mode and never finish anything... it's a fine line, no? Just Say No to screwing with individual note dynamics and timing, or you risk becoming another Autotune casualty... (;-)

Just the same, tracking to MIDI *can* be a very useful tool, even for an old low-tech guy like me. I've just flat got addicted to being able to retune my snare after the fact...
 
Midi?? Oh yeah Baby, Midi is the cheese! You Can:

Print out notation with a program like Sonar, or a real one like Sibelius.

Play licks slowly, speed them up.

Correct timing (Quantize), move a note with the mouse, correct a mistake with a click.

Transpose entire arrangements (midi only) in 2 seconds. Too high for the singer in F Major? Here, try it in D major!!.

Play stuff you couldnt possibly hit the notes to, like Beethoven Sonatas, Stravinsky, etc.

Change the Patches, Modulation, Pitch Bend, etc after the fact.

Record a hard lick one note at a time (step recording), sound like Chick Corea.

I used to do a Demo for a college class I taught, where I would play something horribly uneven, slow, and miss notes on purpose. I then would spend fifteen seconds clicking buttons like quantize, and play it back for my students. I sounded like Vladimir Horowitz. They were impressed.

Want a midi flute to play the same line as a midi oboe? One click does it.

Ever try to stretch audio? Not fun. With midi, nothing to it.

Have a 32 second jingle? Wait, the producer wants it 25 seconds,12 frames, etc? No sweat!

God bless Midi. I will cry now, hold me.:)
 
Sound wise there is no difference.

It is just much easier to edit before committing to 'tape'. It is also nice to reuse midi parts with different sounds. It's nice during the mix to be able to pick entirely different sounds to see if they fit better.

If you are a control freak then get ready for midi. If you are more about capturing the feal of the moment than midi will just slow you down.
 
TexRoadkill said:
If you are more about capturing the feal of the moment than midi will just slow you down.
Click to expand...

How so, Tex?
Well, I guess I see your point, since midi stuff is usually done first (I usually do it first, at least), but for me, Midi speeds things up enormously. Instead of spending hours learning licks and having dozens of "attempts", I can get a midi track to sound great the first time, once I correct errors, yada yada. I do complicated classical, so maybe if one is doing filler pads, it might be simpler to commit to tape/HD.
 
It's all been said before (thanks David K), but I primarily use MIDI when recording for freedom.

Specifically the freedom to change my mind. Especially when new gear comes into the studio.

"I like my Roland piano sounds, but they leave a lot to be desired. Oh well, that's the best I've got so that's what I'll use".

One Week Later

"This Yamaha S80 blows the doors off my Roland for piano patches. Wish I had recorded that fantastic improvised take with this instead. Wait a minute, I used MIDI! Fire up the MC-500 and rerecord with the better gear. The day is saved, thanks to MIDI"

Carl
 
so far, I haven't seen a process that I can't and haven't been doing already...and without recording tracks as MIDI files.

As mentioned, I use it for Sibelius..and that has been about the coolest thing, actually.
I guess I am using MIDI in kinda a *round about* way.. except I am doing it on my keyboard workstation....with the exception of seeing of MIDI *track* on the computer and correcting it with the mouse. I can just correct it on the keyboard.

What I like to do, is sequence things on the keyboard sequencer, then transfer those individually to the computer. ..and I can always change sounds when transferring to the computer...which I do a lot...like doubling up with string patches....Two or more string sounds with the same performance.
One drawback about switching sounds, I FIND, is that much of the time, a performance needs to be altered, because of the change of sound...and it's almost always better to just replay the track, rather than trying to "doctor it up".

I had just envisioned the fantastic potential of soft synths, syncing outboard stuff, etc....
But, lately, I am getting the impression that the soft synths really don't compare to the real deal, and that if you have the tracks, ...hey, lay down the audio.

anywazz....thanks for all the comments...

so...Bsabbath...wadda ya think??
 
Based on your comments I would just say:

Forget about softsynths. They are over rated and take up a lot of valuable DAW resources.

Just record straight on your computer sequencer. They are usually much easier to edit on the fly and sometimes have a higher clock resolution. It's pretty easy to shift a part a little earlier to compensate for a slower attack or something.

I like being able to fix that one clunker instead of having to rerecord an entire phrase.
 
thanks Tex..and everyone else. I feel not so "out of touch" now ..for some reason...:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top