If you want to have a trigger part, I would rather take the smaller 128 LS and a Launchpad mini (combined cheaper than the big LS).
There is a sequencer built into the LS btw., but I never even considered to touch it - I bet you have seen Roger demonstrating it...
If I‘d need more than my iPad mini for sounds, I take the Macbook Air 11“ which actually is not much bigger than a big iPad. There I have a whole universe of sequencers and synths at my disposal...
Accopanied by some extra faderboxes or other controllers and I am in heaven...
A used air or other ultra laptop, the LinnStrument plus a launchpad mini and one or two controllers from the Korg nano series would make up a not too expensive set with almost unlimited possibilities... And all that fits into my backpack...
Please Help a Newbie Understand What Is/Isn't Possible
-
- KVRAF
- 8826 posts since 6 Jan, 2017 from Outer Space
-
- KVRAF
- 2487 posts since 8 Jun, 2010
- Roger Linn Design
Hi totheatom,
Your point is valid: if someone buys LinnStrument primarily for its expressive performance capabilities but also desires a secondary clip launching function, it would be helpful to include that feature. The main reasons that clip launching is not included are:
1) People tend to either value expressive musical note performance or value clip launching, and those who value clip launching are unlikely to pay $1500 or $1000 for LinnStrument’s expressive performance capabilities, which is why it is more expensive than a clip launcher.
2) Given that LinnStrument has no alphanumeric display, adding clip launching capability would make the user interface pretty confusing.
3) Clip launching on LinnStrument wouldn’t be very usable unless the clip launching functions were printed on the panel around the edges of the clip launching area.
4) To be honest, I’ve never been that interested in music made by arranging other peoples’ clips.
Regarding number 1 above, there are some people who are both interested in 3D-expressive musical performance and clip launching, so it would be helpful to them to include clip launching capability. Regarding number 2 above, I would be hesitant to confuse the UI for expressive musicians by adding the UI elements for clip launching.
That said, I think it could be possible to add clip launching in something like the following way:
1) Create an alternate UI that converts the left split to clip-launching use, perhaps as a hidden option under the Special menu in Per-Split Settings, similar to how the Step Sequencer is currently invoked. And similar to the Step Sequencer, specific pads on the playing surface would be used for the functions related to clip launching and therefore not make the primary expressive-performance UI any more confusing.
2) Create magnetic labels for the top, left and bottom edges of LinnStrument’s panel, containing printed functions for clip launching, and which would be sold separately or possibly included with purchase.
This implementation would therefore be 1) simple to use with printed functions on the panel, and 2) not impede LinnStrument’s primary purpose as an expressive musical performance instrument.
I’ll give this some thought and consider its inclusion in future. Thank you for your suggestion.
Your point is valid: if someone buys LinnStrument primarily for its expressive performance capabilities but also desires a secondary clip launching function, it would be helpful to include that feature. The main reasons that clip launching is not included are:
1) People tend to either value expressive musical note performance or value clip launching, and those who value clip launching are unlikely to pay $1500 or $1000 for LinnStrument’s expressive performance capabilities, which is why it is more expensive than a clip launcher.
2) Given that LinnStrument has no alphanumeric display, adding clip launching capability would make the user interface pretty confusing.
3) Clip launching on LinnStrument wouldn’t be very usable unless the clip launching functions were printed on the panel around the edges of the clip launching area.
4) To be honest, I’ve never been that interested in music made by arranging other peoples’ clips.
Regarding number 1 above, there are some people who are both interested in 3D-expressive musical performance and clip launching, so it would be helpful to them to include clip launching capability. Regarding number 2 above, I would be hesitant to confuse the UI for expressive musicians by adding the UI elements for clip launching.
That said, I think it could be possible to add clip launching in something like the following way:
1) Create an alternate UI that converts the left split to clip-launching use, perhaps as a hidden option under the Special menu in Per-Split Settings, similar to how the Step Sequencer is currently invoked. And similar to the Step Sequencer, specific pads on the playing surface would be used for the functions related to clip launching and therefore not make the primary expressive-performance UI any more confusing.
2) Create magnetic labels for the top, left and bottom edges of LinnStrument’s panel, containing printed functions for clip launching, and which would be sold separately or possibly included with purchase.
This implementation would therefore be 1) simple to use with printed functions on the panel, and 2) not impede LinnStrument’s primary purpose as an expressive musical performance instrument.
I’ll give this some thought and consider its inclusion in future. Thank you for your suggestion.
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 105 posts since 8 Jan, 2017
What a fantastic, thoughtful reply. Thank you, Roger. It's truly appreciated. And, thank you again to everyone who has chimed in on this thread.
I would caution some of you not to be too quick to dismiss those who are also interested in unique performance functions outside of the instrumentation itself. This is not a musician vs producer thing. Musicians are also often their producers as well.
Imagine the flexibility of being able to quickly open that UI to trigger backing tracks and then switch back to the normal display to solo on top of it? Or, have an interlude in your performance where you open the UI to perform an arrangement of your clips, etc. There are plenty of perfectly musical possibilities. Of course, I acknowledge you can already do exactly that (and likely more effectively) with a combination of devices, as has been suggested, but it would be highly convenient and less cost prohibitive to incorporate those features on some level in what is already a fantastic device.
After all, if our goal is to advance the expressiveness of modern music, wouldn't it make sense to make the Linnstrument as accessible as reasonably possible to the widest possible demographic of potential users, regardless of their interests?
I would caution some of you not to be too quick to dismiss those who are also interested in unique performance functions outside of the instrumentation itself. This is not a musician vs producer thing. Musicians are also often their producers as well.
This is exactly what I had in mind - an interface similar to how the step sequencer is already incorporated. Kudos!Create an alternate UI that converts the left split to clip-launching use, perhaps as a hidden option under the Special menu in Per-Split Settings, similar to how the Step Sequencer is currently invoked. And similar to the Step Sequencer, specific pads on the playing surface would be used for the functions related to clip launching and therefore not make the primary expressive-performance UI any more confusing.
Imagine the flexibility of being able to quickly open that UI to trigger backing tracks and then switch back to the normal display to solo on top of it? Or, have an interlude in your performance where you open the UI to perform an arrangement of your clips, etc. There are plenty of perfectly musical possibilities. Of course, I acknowledge you can already do exactly that (and likely more effectively) with a combination of devices, as has been suggested, but it would be highly convenient and less cost prohibitive to incorporate those features on some level in what is already a fantastic device.
After all, if our goal is to advance the expressiveness of modern music, wouldn't it make sense to make the Linnstrument as accessible as reasonably possible to the widest possible demographic of potential users, regardless of their interests?
-
- KVRAF
- 2487 posts since 8 Jun, 2010
- Roger Linn Design
I suspect the most effective implementation would be for the Clip Launch split to be variable width, perhaps with magnetic-labeled control buttons on the 3 edges (left or right), and with the split's width controlling the number of session columns. Then one split could be used for clip launching and the other for expressive play. Either the left or right split could be used for clip launching; if used on the left split, the control buttons would be on the left side and you would place the magnetic side label on the edge; if used on the right split, the control buttons would be on the right side and you would place the magnetic side label on the right edge. Or something like that.
-
- KVRer
- 26 posts since 27 Nov, 2009
I'm just chiming in to suggest that, if you are considering the Parva, that you wait a little bit or--instead--purchase the Modor NF-1. The person behind the Parva is a little distracted at the moment and I had a bad go at it a month or two ago. Nothing irredeemable, but I ended up returning it and getting an NF-1. The NF-1 is *really* nice if you have the room for it. It is definitely large but the payoff is that it is extremely playable.
I decided, around a year ago, to work on a hardware based setup. The only snag that I don't see a way around is the wealth of sound sources that can be had on a personal computer. I backed Pipes mostly to have an MPE aware sampler but that won't ship until the end of the year if I'm being optimistic.
I decided, around a year ago, to work on a hardware based setup. The only snag that I don't see a way around is the wealth of sound sources that can be had on a personal computer. I backed Pipes mostly to have an MPE aware sampler but that won't ship until the end of the year if I'm being optimistic.
-
- KVRist
- 264 posts since 17 Oct, 2005
Roger, wouldn't it be more feasible just to design an entirely new controller for something akin to launching clips? Maybe to be used in conjunction with the LinnStrument, but not a part of the LinnStrument itself? This would satisfy those that are interested in a Roger Linn branded Circuit, Push, Blocks, etc. and can probably come in at a much lower price point.
Typically, the convenience of all-in-one's are far outweighed by the mediocrity of what it is they can actually do (i.e., jack of all trades, master of none).
Here's an interesting case study of where improvement, wasn't:
The violin came about in the early 16th century. Most 'modern' violins are similar to what was introduced 500 years ago, albeit with different materials and workmanship. In the 1940's Julius Zoller decided to invent a better mousetrap: in lieu of the traditional f-holes on the face of the instrument, his creation would have its sound holes (5 of them, to be exact) in the ribs on the instrument's sides to increase its projection and it would also have a pear-shape and a 5th sympathetic string under the fingerboard tuned to 'F'. This is known as a Zoller violin and, if you've never seen one, https://www.mkg-hamburg.de/typo3temp/pi ... a0cdad.png.
A ton of bells & whistles on this thing and, for all intents and purposes, a much better instrument. However, it failed to catch on and was left to languish in obscurity.
Typically, the convenience of all-in-one's are far outweighed by the mediocrity of what it is they can actually do (i.e., jack of all trades, master of none).
Here's an interesting case study of where improvement, wasn't:
The violin came about in the early 16th century. Most 'modern' violins are similar to what was introduced 500 years ago, albeit with different materials and workmanship. In the 1940's Julius Zoller decided to invent a better mousetrap: in lieu of the traditional f-holes on the face of the instrument, his creation would have its sound holes (5 of them, to be exact) in the ribs on the instrument's sides to increase its projection and it would also have a pear-shape and a 5th sympathetic string under the fingerboard tuned to 'F'. This is known as a Zoller violin and, if you've never seen one, https://www.mkg-hamburg.de/typo3temp/pi ... a0cdad.png.
A ton of bells & whistles on this thing and, for all intents and purposes, a much better instrument. However, it failed to catch on and was left to languish in obscurity.
Duality without regard to physicality
-
John the Savage John the Savage https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=396119
- KVRian
- 827 posts since 28 Mar, 2017
I think you're preaching to the choir there, c0nsilience (wink).c0nsilience wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:25 pm Typically, the convenience of all-in-one's are far outweighed by the mediocrity of what it is they can actually do (i.e., jack of all trades, master of none).
And you've essentially answered your own question: i.e. I would never presume to speak for Roger, of course, but the way I see it, if you give a mouse a cookie, he's bound to ask for a glass of milk (smirk).
In the same way that the sequencer is just there to scratch an inch, so to speak, adding a clip-launch mode would only really make sense as a basic supplement for the few people who might actually use it. It would be relatively easy to implement, as Roger suggested above, but only because the LinnStrument already exists, and technically the U.I. could support it.
To create a whole new product though... That is a completely different ideology, and surely more work than it's worth. At very least, it would come with a daunting list of lofty expectations from PUSH and Launchpad Pro users.
Cheers!
-
John the Savage John the Savage https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=396119
- KVRian
- 827 posts since 28 Mar, 2017
I don't think anyone is being dismissive of the LinnStrument's potential in this respect; quite the opposite in fact. But there is a longer conversation to be considered here, with regards to focus, elegance, ease of use, development time and resources, etc...
I am both a producer and a musician, and I greatly appreciate Roger's clear vision for the LinnStrument, and the fact that every new feature or functionality to be considered must pass a sniff-test and ultimately not get in the way of the original design.
As Roger has pointed out in many previous discussions, implementing functionality that is better handled by third-party hardware/software is rarely a good use of his resources as a developer, and often leads to what's known as "feature creep". The more complexity you add, the more potential there is for bugs and confusion on the consumer front. The Tempest, for instance, ended up an unholy mess because DSI pandered to too many user requests and exceeded the capability of both the processor and the U.I. As a result, I no longer use it onstage, which was the entire reason I bought the damn thing. Ahem!
So, ya, let's not lose sight of the ball here (wink).
Cheers!
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 105 posts since 8 Jan, 2017
Designing another controller would be rather imprudent, I would think. As mentioned above, it would be quite difficult to outdo the Launchpad and Push offerings, which are already into multiple iterations of their product. Plus, it would just be an additional expense, which defeats the purpose.
Please forgive if any of my commentary has come across as unappreciative or entitled - I assure you, this is not the case at all. I do recognize the merit in the "jack of all trades, master of none" argument.
My reason for bringing any of this up is that I simply see so much potential in the UI and the large grid itself. It is a very unique interface in many regards. Its primary function as an expressive instrument controller will always be the star of the show, but that beautiful grid could easily be used (conceptually speaking, at least) to provide fairly basic, but reasonably effective sequencing and clip launching capability to the end user, among perhaps other handy functions. By extension, it would require less desktop real estate (assuming I don't need to bring out standalone devices for those additional uses) and be an easier financial justification for those of us on the fence (assuming I may then not need to purchase those additional devices in the first place). This, of course, means little to nothing to the product's hardcore audience (i.e. many of you), but it means a hell of a lot to the average hobbyist (e.g. me).
I do also agree with your points, John, about the cautionary tale of feature creep as well as the elegance inherit in a clear, simplistic design philosophy. However, I would contend that much of what is necessary is already in place and that this isn't a particularly big ask. By all accounts, Roger has already delivered a fantastically playable controller and well thought out UI. In this case, I don't think that any of what I'm suggesting would detract in any way from the core product.
Roger, if I could suggest any particular implementation approach to piggyback on the "split" concept that you've already smartly theorized, I would offer the following:
Allow the non-performance split in this view to be cycled between the different functions being discussed. For example, the user would be able to cycle between the sequencer controls and clip launcher on the right split. Perhaps you could even designate a couple of the grid squares at the top of this split to be the "navigation" between the different functions. Not sure if I'm doing the concept justice with my explanation, but I can easily envision the performance benefits of such an arrangement. Let me know if an illustration would be of any usefulness as clarification.
Please forgive if any of my commentary has come across as unappreciative or entitled - I assure you, this is not the case at all. I do recognize the merit in the "jack of all trades, master of none" argument.
My reason for bringing any of this up is that I simply see so much potential in the UI and the large grid itself. It is a very unique interface in many regards. Its primary function as an expressive instrument controller will always be the star of the show, but that beautiful grid could easily be used (conceptually speaking, at least) to provide fairly basic, but reasonably effective sequencing and clip launching capability to the end user, among perhaps other handy functions. By extension, it would require less desktop real estate (assuming I don't need to bring out standalone devices for those additional uses) and be an easier financial justification for those of us on the fence (assuming I may then not need to purchase those additional devices in the first place). This, of course, means little to nothing to the product's hardcore audience (i.e. many of you), but it means a hell of a lot to the average hobbyist (e.g. me).
I do also agree with your points, John, about the cautionary tale of feature creep as well as the elegance inherit in a clear, simplistic design philosophy. However, I would contend that much of what is necessary is already in place and that this isn't a particularly big ask. By all accounts, Roger has already delivered a fantastically playable controller and well thought out UI. In this case, I don't think that any of what I'm suggesting would detract in any way from the core product.
Roger, if I could suggest any particular implementation approach to piggyback on the "split" concept that you've already smartly theorized, I would offer the following:
Allow the non-performance split in this view to be cycled between the different functions being discussed. For example, the user would be able to cycle between the sequencer controls and clip launcher on the right split. Perhaps you could even designate a couple of the grid squares at the top of this split to be the "navigation" between the different functions. Not sure if I'm doing the concept justice with my explanation, but I can easily envision the performance benefits of such an arrangement. Let me know if an illustration would be of any usefulness as clarification.
-
- KVRAF
- 2487 posts since 8 Jun, 2010
- Roger Linn Design
Sorry but designing yet another low cost on/off switch controller isn’t so interesting to me. Clip launching also isn’t interesting to me but if it’s not too much work, I can see merit in adding a feature to LinnStrument for the benefit of those who mainly use its expressive performance capabilities.c0nsilience wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:25 pm Roger, wouldn't it be more feasible just to design an entirely new controller for something akin to launching clips?
Thanks to all for the suggestions.
-
- KVRist
- 310 posts since 8 Jul, 2009
I've never been interested in that either, but I am interested in launching my own midi clips that I recorded earlier (very much including MPE midi clips in bitwig).Roger_Linn wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:34 pm 4) To be honest, I’ve never been that interested in music made by arranging other peoples’ clips.
I havent given it much thought though in relation to the Linnstrument. I suppose its the sort of feature I would be tempted to try to implement myself due to the availability of firmware source code. Whether I ever take the time to try that is uncertain right now.
-
- KVRAF
- 2487 posts since 8 Jun, 2010
- Roger Linn Design
Good point, Steve. Arranging clips that you made yourself is a process that I do value and find to be more creative.
-
- KVRAF
- 8826 posts since 6 Jan, 2017 from Outer Space
A built-in Midi looper? With all the potential of mangling Midi instead of audio? Could be fun, but we would need to send it to multiple destinations to make sense. At that point we better have it in the box and just control it from the LinnStrument (or footpedal)...
-
- KVRAF
- 2487 posts since 8 Jun, 2010
- Roger Linn Design
I'd say that's a better fit for something outside of LinnStrument.
-
- KVRAF
- 8826 posts since 6 Jan, 2017 from Outer Space
Much better!
I just try to develop a Midi looping workflow with Bitwig. I probably need to create my own controller scripts. I can do it for a launchpad mini and/or for a McMillen SoftStep. A LaunchControl XL is another option, maybe the best...
I just try to develop a Midi looping workflow with Bitwig. I probably need to create my own controller scripts. I can do it for a launchpad mini and/or for a McMillen SoftStep. A LaunchControl XL is another option, maybe the best...
