I am starting this new thread, leading on from comments made by Diki in another thread about communication between arrangers.

Diki's post got me thinking....

Maybe as a community, arranger players can lobby the Midi Manufacturers Association (MMA) to have them come up with a industry wide specification for the communication between arrangers specifically.

No sounds or style parts need to change at all on the receiving keyboard..They all have variation 1,2 3 or more, intro 1,2 or more etc etc. They all have auto-start, pretty much the same chord recognition, recognise splits.

All that is required is for the MMA to come up with a command syntax to be adopted by all arranger manufacturers at the basic level. Like midi you could have higher level commands if you wanted, but I don't see these as necessary.

What do others think? Is it a worthwhile crusade, or not?

Don't be shy say what you think, even if you think it's a dumb idea and a waste of time.

Dennis

We cant even get 76 keys on a Yamaha what people want doesnt seem to sink in to them at all.

[This message has been edited by Dnj (edited 08-06-2008).]

Midi is a standard that all electronic musical instruments understand, if you design something specific for arrangers then you totally defeat the object of a universal multi keyboard communication protocol.
GM3 when it is sorted will most likely have it built in anyway, (As a universal standard not just for arrangers) so that any electronic instrument that wants to use it, can. (The manufacture will decide whether they wish to add it to their Midi implementation or not)
My guess is that GM3 will be a common protocol that can be used via Midi sockets or USB. (We will just have to wait and see on this though)

Bill

The thing is...

You don't really need to go to the MMA at all. The codes to achieve the control are already in place. Simple program changes are all that is necessary on a defined MIDI channel. In fact, Roland already have most of the needed commands in their specs. Korg have most of the commands in their specs. The trouble is, they are not standardized

So, you can control a Roland arranger with a Roland arranger, and a Korg with a Korg, but you can't control a Korg with a Roland (or vice versa). And, as far as Yamaha go, you can't control them as slave, or use them as a master

Most of the functions to control an arranger are simple buttons. Push this, get that... So program changes to do fill selection, variation change, breaks, Intros, endings, etc. are simple commands. Roland specify a particular channel as 'control' channel, and then PC#'s trigger the arranger functions. Other CC00/32/PC#'s can select the styles.

So, instead of getting the MMA (who take forever to get anything done) involved, it is a case of trying to get basically the Big 3 (everyone else will follow if just two or three standardize - remember how few embraced MIDI at first) to standardize the codes to do this. We don't need new codes. We just need an agreement about which current ones to use.

For anyone that is interested, I might suggest looking at a Roland 'Parameter Reference' .pdf
http://roland-arranger.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=64&func=fileinfo&id=35

is the G70 one. It shows (p.17-18) what can be done, from the style division #'s, to the UPG (registration) codes, and the Style and Custom (user) style addresses...

It's fairly comprehensive, but the only problem is they are not changeable. Likewise for Korg (I don't know their manuals!). Given Roland's comprehensiveness, and also their part in the original GM/GS patch standardization, it might be expedient to ask the other manufacturers to comply with these already established standards.

It remains to be seen if there is any interest from the manufacturers, but, were I them, I would be looking at this as a way to sell more arrangers. If you can hook them together, many WILL buy more than just one!

Let's see if they are listening. These are strictly OS changes, no extra hardware required, and, other than Yamaha, are already sort of in place. Just the standardization is all we need...

Who is interested in this? I know for a FACT that if I could control an S900 with my G70, I would already have one, maybe even a T2. So, come on Yamaha... get crackin'!

I am pretty sure Midi was adopted by all manufactures straight away, and was incorporated into all newly released products, (I think Yamaha started with the HX1 in about 1985. (The rest of the instruments followed as they were released)
Standards have to be universal, or they get limited use. (The big 3 on their own are the last ones you want set up a standard)
As to sending out codes for variations etc, then most instruments have had this capability for the last 10 – 15 years, but as there was no standard they were mot implemented by a lot of manufactures. (You aren’t going to get any sales unless your instrument can talk to other manufactures)
Whether you like it or not the MMA is the only way to go. (Not much point in starting something new when you already have good solid foundations to build on)

Bill

Actually, Bill, MIDI first started as a collaboration between Dave Smith (of Sequential Circuits) and Roland, with Dave doing most of the initial work. They had a fair amount of it figured out before it went further than that, and got the other manufacturers on board (and some like Oberheim, were quite resistant to the protocol, preferring their own proprietary system for quite a while). It was by no means collaborative between all the manufacturers, simply delivered in their laps for them to approve, and amend, on the whole. The MMA is a large, slow organization, with few of it's members even making arrangers, so probably little incentive to work quickly.

Also, you have to understand that the vast majority of arranger sales come from just the Big 3. I would be unsurprised at maybe 95% of all arranger sales come from those three, so getting them to implement this would make it a de facto standard.

The thing is, the MMA set standards for NEW MIDI codes, but this problem is solved by existing ones, and is, in fact already essentially solved. The system exists, it only needs to be implemented.

Trust me, the MMA has been discussing HD-MIDI for years (decades) now. Do we really want to wait that long for something that already exists?