henrik@eddie.mit.edu (Larry DeLuca) (02/25/90)
MIDI. God, what a double-edged sword it is. Mostly, though, I think it's absolutely wonderful what it's made possible, though am more often disappointed by what it's made real. I have a fairly extensive MIDI setup at home (Roland D-50, S-50, S-10, Kawai Q-80 sequencer, Kawai K1m, Kawai R-50 and Alesis HR-16 drum machines, not to mention a Tascam MTS-30 for tape lockup to our 8-track...), and I find it wonderful for demos and experimentation. My last recording project was entirely MIDI instruments and voice (except for one sax part I played live). The more I work with them, though, the more acutely aware I am of the limitations - while that sampled Cello may sound fabulously real when you press the key, what happens when you press a whole bunch of them to form a melody line? Hmmm, only one attack, huh? Well, you could fix that with Velocity-Switching, or mixing a couple of parts, or... Try and transcribe "She's Leaving Home" into your sequencer sometime ;-) On my new project (which I am very excited about) I'm using synthesizer tracks as the basic tracks for some songs (and am even leaving the drum machines for a couple of songs where I have decided I like the feel, or lack thereof, better), but getting a number of people in to play other instruments (I've got string players and brass players and bassists and guitarists and ...). We've just started recording, so I can't say yet if I'm more pleased with the results or not, but I have a feeling that I will be, and I'll surely post to the net afterwards. As far as using MIDI tools for pre-production, it's great. I get everything written just the way I want it, play it into the sequencer, make adjustments if parts don't work together (using the sounds of the instruments that will be playing), and then bump it up to the Mac and print out sheet music when I'm finished to hand to session players. While we're recording, I usually throw down a sync track for lockup during post-production if we want it, so I can add synthesized pieces later if I like. MIDI also makes life easier in going into the studio. I do all my practicing, yelling, screaming, throwing things, and otherwise perfecting my performance in the privacy (and relative inexpense) of my own home. When I go into the studio to dump synthesizer tracks, I walk in with the synths, the sequencer, and a floppy disk containing my performance (immortalized for all time, including appearing live). When you're playing producer as well, this makes life all that much easier (doubly so since I still record some instrumental and of course all vocal parts live, which can be pretty wearing in and of itself, and I can pace myself, my energy, and my concentration better this way). I also (generally) prefer to do demos into the sequencer (and lock up to my 4-track to add the vocals). That way, in case just the right thing happens and I can't really reproduce it (if you bounce at all during 4-track demos things get hopelessly difficult to untangle sometimes) I can either print out sheet music, play back an individual part to listen to it, or route it to the S-50, whose monitor will show me what notes I played. I could even cut-and-paste it into another song, but my personal preference for using the sequencer is as an extension of my multi-track, not a substitute for playing, chops, or whatever. For playing live, the stuff is invaluable. We run live with the full MIDI setup and supplement it with vocals, the occasional guitar and bass, sax, and tambourine. Makes it much easier to get a good house mix ;-). I use two people to mix sound - one on stage with the synths, balancing them relative to each other, and one in the back of the house at the mixing board, balancing synths, drums, vocals, guitar, and tape effects. Given the kind of music I've been writing, being able to have lots of it sequenced gives us a great degree of flexibility (it's hard to find dijeridu players in Boston). <M-X Mount Soapbox> On the down side, it's been painful to see the disco phenomenon repeat in such a nasty way. At least in the 70's when they were turning out shit it took about sixty real musicians and support staff to make a disco record. Now with the advent of MIDI and production workstations like the Fairlight and the Synclavier, people can "cut corners" and "save money" by using synthesized brass and strings, building backing parts in post-production, etc., etc., etc. It's unfortunate to see people using synthesizers, etc., as a cheaper substitute for the real thing, as opposed to instruments in their own right. Of course, I confess, not being signed to a major label and having major bucks has occasionally forced me to do this as well ;-) (though I am trying to redeem myself on this next project). The other thing that irks me is that with the new tools people often seem to get so obsessed with "that sound" (gated reverb snares, anyone?) that writing music sometimes gets left behind. While the latest in studio trickery can sure clinch a good track sometimes, and can even make a bad track interesting for a listen or two, it's such a shame to hear yet another slap-happy assemblage of stale production tricks in American top-fourty. People like The Beatles, Peter Gabriel, and Kate Bush (and their engineers and producers) certainly have employed more experimental production ideas (and pioneered a lot of the ones we are so sick of today), but working from a strong musical base makes so much of a difference. Of course, this will happen with or without MIDI or anything like that. It's just that cheaper synthesizers exacerbate the problem. <M-X Dismount Soapbox> larry...