3 ms·

Those suggestions were literally unimaginable when MIDI was invented. Samplers barely had enough memory for a single sample, never mind GB of multisamples with

Those suggestions were literally unimaginable when MIDI was invented. Samplers barely had enough memory for a single sample, never mind GB of multisamples with countless articulation options. And semantic messaging - for phrases, etc - is a whole other level of complexity which has barely been researched, never mind implemented. MIDI 1.0's failings are much simpler - limited resolution, limited channels, and limited support for polyphonic expression. MIDI 2.0 has addressed all of those, but it's a bureaucratic monster of a protocol and I suspect it's not going to be popular. We could really have done with a MIDI 1.5 which kept the same message types but made them 16-bit instead of 8-bit, and also added some extra poly-start and poly-controller features. That would have been enough to open a whole new world of expression without adding a lot of extra complexity.

TylerE 4y ago
You could get away from poly-anything with an essentially unlimited number of channels. Just use one channel per note, and banks like you currently use channels
noizejoy 4y ago
> MIDI 1.0's failings ... I generally agree with most of your points, although I'd prefer to call it "limitations". But even with those limitations, MIDI 1.0 has been used in numerous practical applications that have transcended the original use case concepts. From GM to MCU to MPE and many other things people have done at smaller scale or even just in their own custom setups. Sure, those are "hacks", but especially on this site, I'd consider that worthy of praise, rather than ridicule. To this day, thanks to MIDI 1.0, I can and do cobble very different pieces of hardware and software together to effectively create a highly individualized and therefore creativity boosting music making environment. > MIDI 2.0 has addressed all of those, but it's a bureaucratic monster of a protocol and I suspect it's not going to be popular. -- We could really have done with a MIDI 1.5 ... Yeah - MIDI 2.0 gives me a a vibe somewhat analogous to IPv6. But it's early days, so I'll wait how it plays out ...

TylerE 4y ago

You could get away from poly-anything with an essentially unlimited number of channels. Just use one channel per note, and banks like you currently use channels

noizejoy 4y ago

> MIDI 1.0's failings ... I generally agree with most of your points, although I'd prefer to call it "limitations". But even with those limitations, MIDI 1.0 has been used in numerous practical applications that have transcended the original use case concepts. From GM to MCU to MPE and many other things people have done at smaller scale or even just in their own custom setups. Sure, those are "hacks", but especially on this site, I'd consider that worthy of praise, rather than ridicule. To this day, thanks to MIDI 1.0, I can and do cobble very different pieces of hardware and software together to effectively create a highly individualized and therefore creativity boosting music making environment. > MIDI 2.0 has addressed all of those, but it's a bureaucratic monster of a protocol and I suspect it's not going to be popular. -- We could really have done with a MIDI 1.5 ... Yeah - MIDI 2.0 gives me a a vibe somewhat analogous to IPv6. But it's early days, so I'll wait how it plays out ...