Re: Midi standards

["Matt McCabe" <mattm@bi-tech.com>]

> From: Sellon, Bob <bsellon@lexicon.com>

> While I can appreciate Kim's emotion over our apparent misuse of the MIDI
  
> Program Change message, I'm still not convinced that it was an entirely
bad   
> decision. Our decision to use Program Change messages for operational > >
commands was made  entirely for the benefit of our customers. At the time >
JamMan was released there were precious few MIDI foot controllers available
and it > seemed like the  ones that were reasonably priced only transmitted
program > change messages. Our   
> intent was to provide extended control of the JamMan for people on a
tight   
> budget and I think we did that.

And this works fine *if* you have a *dedicated* foot controller for the
JamMan.  If you already own a foot controller that was designed, primarily,
to change patches on another effects processor (case in point, the GSP-2101
and Control One foot controller) you are out of luck if you desire to use
the controller to control *both* units simultaneously.  Granted, you *can*
use the controller if you don't mind changing patches on the 2101
everything you punch in and out of a loop -- but this isn't the best
arrangement.  In fact, it sucks.

(The obvious answer is to remap the foot controller so that certain patches
don't transmit to the 2101...unfortunately...last time I tried, there was
no way to do this.  You see, the foot controller gets its power from the
2101.)

> requires going into an edit mode and tweaking. My experience has been   
> that most musicians don't want to have to tweak at all (many don't even
like   
> MIDI much less care about what messages are being sent). They want to
plug it   
> in and have it work. Done.

So basically, while catering to the lowest common denominator, Lexicon's
design choice has made it difficult for musicians you *use* MIDI to
integrate the JamMan into their MIDI-ifed rig without adding additional
foot controllers.

Alas.  I still like my JamMan.

Matt