Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!mpmst1 From: mpmst1@unix.cis.pitt.edu (metlay) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: amigas in the music world. Summary: 3 yen worth from a newcomer (to c.s.a, not music |-> ) Message-ID: <24835@unix.cis.pitt.edu> Date: 10 Jun 90 17:32:32 GMT References: <25719@netnews.upenn.edu> <136734@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <24751@unix.cis.pitt.edu> <2194@apss.apss.ab.ca> Reply-To: mpmst1@unix.cis.pitt.edu (metlay) Organization: RoadKill Records(TM): Music With Impact Lines: 182 (Please Email me and let me know if I've violated any basic etiquette rules; I've been posting to rec.music.synth for years now, but this is my first post to comp.sys.amiga, and I don't know if I remember ALL of the ground rules in the intro post (thanks to Dan Barrett for sending it to me).) I'm having a terrific time with this thread. It's fascinating to see how music software brings out the worst in everybody |-> |-> |-> . I'd like to skip over the entire "How Dare You" section of this, and offer something about the music systems themselves. First off, I don't know how many c.s.a readers are familiar with the Godawful mess that music synthesis programming is these days. Unlike a lot of other areas of computer use, music tends to attract users who desire, at least at first, NOTHING other than music utilities; they're new to computing (which means that everything has to be not only foolproof, but DamnFoolProof |->), they're new to the concept of expandability (which means that modular or expandable systems don't sell, and code has to be comprehensive as possible), and they're new to the ethical questions of software distribution (which is why the music world is the only major remaining software area where copy protection is the rule rather than the exception). Each platform has its own advantages and pitfalls, and informed users make choices based on these. The problem is that most musicians haven't the time or resources to become as informed as they need to be. Here are a couple of thumbnail sketches of the current state of the various computers with respect to MIDI. These are meant only to give a taste for what's going on, not a comprehensive outlook.... 1. The IBM and clones are under a great disadvantage, in that the first MIDI interface board for the PC, the Roland MPU401, established a de facto standard that all programmers must follow. In "intelligent" mode, the MPU does a lot of the work of bit-shuffling itself; this was vital when 8088s were the rule, but in the days of the 80386 it's now more of a hindrance than a help. People are slowly rediscovering the MPU's "dumb" mode now, and one fellow named Robert Keller markets a dumb-mode program called 64 Track PC which basically eats the competition alive, and competes well with the priciest programs on other machines. This trend will probably continue as PCs get faster and programmers get smarter; the code quality out there now, given the MPU botleneck, is quite high in most cases. 2. The Atari ST has the advantage of a built-in MIDI port, making an interface unnecessary, at least for simple applications. It's primarily a window/mouse sort of interface, which is less intimidating than a command-line setup for the novice, and it's almost as cheap to set up as a cheap PC clone. The software is quite good, especially the stuff written in Germany, where the ST is the computer of choice for musicians due largely to high Apple prices. Multiport interfaces do exist for it, and there's a lot of power to be had. Software is generally cheap and reliable, but the really big packages tend to follow the Mac in price as well as features. 3. The Macintosh is the computer of choice for American musicians, weighted heavily toward the pro end of the scale due to its very high cost. Why? Because to the end user, it's not a "computer" unless he or she WANTS it to be; music software totally separates the musician from the machine, and does so cleanly and elegantly. Because of the high price point of the Apple machines, the hottest and costliest software tends to be written for them; it's not uncommon to pay $495 for a sequencer, and the best notation program to date debuted at $1000 a pop. The interfaces tend to be the most feature-laden as well; this falls in line with the Apple policy of getting everything one needs into the smallest possible number of boxes, a trend which also has the MAc II leading the pack in terms of onboard DSP cards. 4. The Amiga is, well, none of the above. It trails the pack by a long margin in terms of number and variety of available MIDI peripherals, programs, and musician support. That 14% figure actually surprised me when I saw it; based on what I know about the MI industry, I'd have thought it would be smaller. The earliest MIDI packages for the Amiga had severe timing problems; they had difficulty keeping time while multitasking. By the time these problems had been licked, the Amiga had lost its shot at an early lead in the music race, and music became less of a first-line priority for Commodore than, say, for Atari. As a result, interfaces have been cheap but comparatively primitive so far, and the programs, written as they are by a small but committed group of programmers, are quite powerful but very low-profile. Does this sound harsh? If it does, I'm sorry; I should point out that after several years of working on all of the available platforms and watching the trends, I have just purchased and am preparing to install and teach myself to use an Amiga 500, with which I'm very pleased. The reasoning behind my choice was, I think, the reasoning that guides most music computer buyers when they make their choices... the relationship of music to the programmer's own Big Picture. When a person buys a computer, they usually don't have a particular use in mind; the whole concept of a computer is that one can get it to do a lot of things, depending on what one needs at any given moment. There ARE exceptions, of course, like the firm that has many computers already and decides to dedicate one to, perhaps, telecommunications nets. Or the musician who decides to computerize his studio. There is a strong differentiation between the musician who decides to get a computer and the computer user who decides to add music abilities; their priorities are different, their outlloks are different, and different things make them happy or frustrate them. The huge advantage of the Mac is that it's non-scary. Everything does what you'd expect; point, click, drag, point, click, drag. It's clean and efficient, it does its job with a minimum of fuss and it does it VERY well (after all, money talks and bullsh*t walks, and if you paid megabux for this thing it had BETTER work; the music industry loves slinging mud, and companies that release bad products get hit hard and often don't survive). The primary disadvantage of the Mac, frankly, is its cost. To set up a basic studio Mac (using new equipment at student discounts) would cost about $1000; a reasonably powerful rig would be closer to $2000, and one with DSP capability, well, never mind. If you can't afford a Mac, then you get an Atari. Sure, it may look a little cheesier and feel a little cheaper, but it does the job well and it saves you a lot of bucks; a 1040 can be ready to go for $700, and DSP for the Atari is powerful and affordable. These two packages, then, tend to attract the musician rather than the computer user; you plug them in, turn them on, and they work. There's a strong community of power users of both machines, but these people usually come to such things later on, after they've become comfortable enough with their machines to want more. On the other hand, the IBM and Amiga tend to appeal to people who'd be using computers anyway, for one reason or another; the IBM, because of its wide range of acceptance and the many ways in which it can be customized, and the Amiga for its unique graphics and multitasking capabilities. The Amiga music software market, as it currently exists, will never win over people who are trying to decide on a music system AND WHO DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT COMPUTERS. Video compatibility? Animation? Multitasking? Who cares... all of the really glitzy stuff out there's on the Mac and the Atari. To appreciate the Amiga, one must know enough to know what makes it special, and the punter who's adding MIDI to his rig probably won't. This is neither "right" nor "wrong," neither "fair" nor "unfair"-- it merely IS. You can't get a feel for the tremendous advantages the MAc and Atari enjoy from the the perspective of a computer user...you have to start reading the magazines from MY side of the tracks, like KEYBOARD or ELECTRONIC MUSICIAN or HOME AND STUDIO RECORDING, and see who's publishing the ads and who's spending the bucks to grab the newcomer. The Amiga DOES get mentioned, probably more than its 14% share would lead you to expect, but it isn't able to compete with the others; there isn't enough novice appeal. Adding to the problem, the hardware is REALLY primitive; only one OUT port, and (the kiss of death) no SMPTE sync capability. If the Amiga won't follow SMPTE, no one in the music industry will take it seriously, because SMPTE is simply vital for all major music applications-- not only audio/video lockup, but audio/audio lock as well! Nobody will install a computer that can't chase-lock to a tape recorder; it'd be useless. So there aren't many studios that are willing to give the Amiga a second glance. So what does the Amiga have going for it? A lot; that's why you're here. (Hell, that's why I'M here! |-> ) But there are going to have to be some major changes on a fundamental level before the Amiga's already excellent software can claim its place among the best of the best. For one thing, someone has to build and market a reliable MIDI interface that can handle more than one OUT port (preferably multitasking at the same time, so, say, a librarian program can configure a synth at one port while two others send out sequence data, etc.) and read, write, jamsync, and refresh SMPTE. Until such an interface exists, then the Mac and Atari, and the IBM clones, will be the only machines of professional choice. Another area is the development of software that really USES multitasking in a practical way; the other companies are scrambling to kludge together multiprogram environments (there are, at last count, five competing standards for the Atari), and the Amiga developers are squandering their lead in this area. Part of the problem here is that there aren't very many of the pieces of such an environment in existence yet; there are a couple of good Amiga sequencers, and some sample editors, but where are the notation programs and librarian/editor software? We have a long way to go, and not a lot of time to do it in.... So why didn't I save my pennies a little longer and buy a Mac, or bite the bullet and get an Atari? Because I can't see spending that kind of money on a Mac, and I don't personally LIKE the Atari. What it comes down to is, I LIKE what the Amiga is going to do for me; AmigaTeX with a previewer is going to pay for itself, then pay for the Amiga, in the time it takes me to write my doctoral dissertation. I have friends with all of the different computers, but the ones with whom I have the closest rapport (hi, Dan) and the closest regular contact (hey, Kurt; what it is, Eelman) all use Amigas, and I like the way their studios work for them. I guess I'm just trying to say that I'm enough of a computer user to appreciate a good machine when I see it, and not enough of a musically-focussed studio hound to desire the less distracting environment of the other machines. And I can wait for the developments I've mentioned above; they ARE coming, and in the meantime there's a lot of fun to be had and a lot of music to be made. Thanks for letting me ramble; if there's anyone out there who's an AMiga music user who wouldn't mind helping a newcomer (to the Amiga, not to MIDI) get started, please Email me...I'd apreciate your input. Looking forward to reading this newsgroup, -- metlay | METLAY'S LAW: | If you can't go into your local store, ask for mpmst1@unix.cis.pitt.edu | it, pay for it and walk out with it, then it's metlay@vms.cis.pitt.edu | vaporware, and you shouldn't waste time on it.