Change to MIDI spec: patch names

[guestuserguestuser.com]

I don't know if anyone from the MMA reads this forum, but I would like to propose a change to the MIDI spec:

 

Why can't patch names be in some standard format that's easily retrievable over MIDI? If this was the case, then sequencer manufacturers would be able to easily display patch names. This is one of the biggest drawbacks to sequencer usage that I know of.

 

In Cubase, which is what I use, Steinberg has provided a couple of mechanisms for displaying patch names: Studio Modules, and more recently, Patchname Script files. The problem with these is that it's up to users to write the modules or patch scripts, which is not easy to do, so there are no studio modules or patch scripts for many common synths, including the Triton Rack, for instance. "Why don't you just write a Patch Script yourself?" you ask. Well, because I don't have time, damn it. I want to compose and play music, not write patchname script files. Writing a patch name script file would take hours and hours, and I just don't have the time. Besides, I dont' want to have to go through this every time I buy a new synth.

 

Each sequencer manufacturer has their own solution to this problem: Cakewalk has something similar to patchname script files, I'm not too familiar with the Mac sequencers, but I understand they have similar solutions to this problem.

 

Why can't we standardize this, make it part of the Midi spec? So that a sequencer can send a request over to the synth, and the synth will shoot back the name of a patch, or of all of its patches?

[guestuserguestuser.com]

No takers for this thread?

[BassGuy]

Great idea, Guest. Try Anderton's forum, you might get more response. Tascam, Kurzweil and Sonic have reps who frequent these boards.

[Dan O]

I don't think it's a software issue . I think the main problem is Yamaha , Korg , Roland etc...need to create a GM voice structure that is truely enhancing midi playback or midi implementation.

Most manufacturers offer a ton of sounds with alot of capabilites . But when you listen to the GM banks ....it's disappointing !

 

 

I hope this makes sense .

 

PUT THE BEST SOUNDS UNDER A GM MAP ! dano

[guestuserguestuser.com]

Originally posted by dano:

I don't think it's a software issue . I think the main problem is Yamaha , Korg , Roland etc...need to create a GM voice structure that is truely enhancing midi playback or midi implementation.

Most manufacturers offer a ton of sounds with alot of capabilites . But when you listen to the GM banks ....it's disappointing ! I hope this makes sense . PUT THE BEST SOUNDS UNDER A GM MAP ! dano

Your suggestion is good but it assumes that everyone wants to use GM, which they don't. Personally I see GM as a good thing, it's an attempt to solve this problem, I frankly don't see why people get so upset about it, it's very useful for some things.

 

But it seems that GM is not going to get universal acceptance. Maybe in the future GM, or some future flavour of it will truly become a standard. But the way things are right now, each synth has banks and banks full of patches that don't fit into GM. There needs to be an easy and standardized way to display them in sequencers to make it easier to work in the sequencer. When I'm in my sequencer, and I have all my synths hooked up, I want to be able to see "what's in each synth" as it were. And I don't want to have to spend days and weeks writing scripts to make it all work. And if I change a bank of patches in a synth, or add an expansion card or something, I don't want to have spend more days editing my scripts. It's frustrating as hell.