[ Matthew Caulfield wrote in 000926 MMD: ]

> In choosing the tracker scale for a band organ you are designing,
> I think there are two main things to consider: (1) the musical
> capability of the scale, and (2) the availability of music for that
> scale.  If you disregard the first consideration, you are apt not
> to be satisfied with the sound of your organ.  If you disregard the
> second, you will be hard-put to find good music to play on it.

I noticed a year ago people like John Tuttle complaining that no one
used the MMD Archive.  What you say above is the answer to what I think
a lot of people are asking.  This really needs to be in a FAQ along
with some simple explanations of the different scales.  The recent
discussion on B.A.B. is quite good, yet if I did not have 12 years
of exposure to such instruments I would not understand it at all.

I know I am not qualified to write a FAQ, but I can suggest that
someone should explain how a-chromatic versus chromatic was used to
cut costs.  Perhaps then us non-music arrangers could understand it.

 [ It's simple: fewer pipes!  The scale of only white keys is a
 [ diatonic scale; a chromatic scale has all the keys.  The cost of
 [ an organ is proportional to the number of notes played, hence the
 [ number of pipes.  Many great tunes can be played on only the white
 [ keys, with one or two black keys in the melody division.  -- Robbie

In my case (2) is the more important.  That is what will determine the
scale.  In the last few weeks I have also learned that in the near term
I will not have the room to work with anything more than a 2- or 4-foot
stop.  This is a big constraint.  Yet I find the 20-note Gem Roller
Organ quite musical.

I think the trap we find ourselves in is that we want a single
solution.  This is why Microsoft has been so successful.  Soon your
toaster will talk to the TV so that you can use the computer to be
force-fed the latest genetically processed jelly-filled waffle that
62.8 percent of the population likes.

I think the designers of these different tracker scales had the same
problem: how to cram as much popular music in, and still meet demand
for the discriminating listener.

I think what is wanted by myself and many others is a 'short list' of
titles that have good arrangements and are easily available on a number
of instruments.  Something that uses a little of everything such as
percussion an more than one instrument.  Otherwise you have a player
piano.

 [ Matthew continued: ]

> As time goes on the second consideration becomes a little easier
> to work around, as MIDI-fication (Robin Pratt, close your ears!)
> of organs becomes more common and as arrangers become more skilled
> at computer-assisted arranging.
>
> A computer can assist in arranging in a couple of ways.  It can,
> as Tom Meijer uses it, allow him to produce by computer printout the
> pattern for any new book or roll that he arranges.  Tom, the
> musician, still does the actual arranging; the computer now does the
> dog work of printing all the perforation marks on the pattern.
>
> If his customer's organ has MIDI capability, Tom can skip the
> marking/punching operation entirely, supplying the customer with the
> arrangement on disk, ready to play the organ.  Additionally, computer
> involvement in the arranging process greatly simplifies the task of
> making tempo adjustments in a tune while it is still in draft form.

There was a lot of this discussed at the MBSI meeting.  I spent some
time talking with an arranger from Belgium (sorry, I misplaced his
name.)  MIDI, like CNC [computer-controlled machine tools], or even
a hammer and saw, is just a tool.  I got my CNC because the machinist
who got it was told all you have to do is press the button.  This
machinist has 50 some years of skill, turning the handles.  I on the
other hand know how to hold a pencil and draw a line.  Neither of these
is in the machine.

The real failing is the lack of interest/knowledge of what is or is
not practicable.  If it takes a lifetime (or 6 years) of dedicated
study, most will opt for the easy out.

At least with the Jaquet-Droz doll, she only plays 5 tunes.  Whatever
music she is to play must be in A- major, and is restricted to how
fast her arms move to re-position the digits over the correct keys.

Supposedly she had a sister who played 15 songs.  Whatever they
were, they were probably popular tunes of the late 18th century.
All the drawings of the sister make her look like a faux automaton.
Unfortunately the 'Sister' disappeared into Russia in the 1830s so
we may never know how the music is arranged.  In my quest to make such
a replica myself I seek to learn how other instruments work.

> I am not the expert in this area, and it would be very interesting to
> hear Tom, himself, talk to us about the impact the computer has had
> on an arranger's work.  Tom?
>
> Another factor that has made the choice of tracker scale a little
> less of a straight jacket on the music available for that scale is
> the computer-assisted capability, such as Keller & Kern advertise,
> to convert a tune arranged for one scale to the customer's particular
> scale and to provide the converted arrangement either in book or roll
> form or on MIDI disk.

I am not sure I agree here.  A tracker scale defines the instrument.
The above is fine for the casual net surfer who wants to play the file
with General Midi.  I am not so sure it is appropriate to force music
not intended any more than using a small screwdriver to turn a big
screw; it bungs up both the tool and the screw.  Or, to put it in
computer terms, Windows will run on a Macintosh, but not the other way
round.  Linux, though will run on both.  Soon both will run on a
Linux-like system.  I have this image of a collector 79 years from now
trying to make Mac OS7 run on a Pentium 233 just because there is no
reason for it not to.

On the other hand, it is only natural that a 'new' collector who is
familiar with software would want something that Plays A, G and O
rolls.  As these are the most common.

I spent some time looking at the list of Wurlitzer 180 rolls posted
here a few days ago Digest 000903 in looking through the 165 catalog.
I can see this is not what I want.

The question then, is there similar lists for other instruments?  Or
are the other lists too large to surf with a slow modem in the evening?
John Tuttle's pages are interesting if I want QRS rolls.  But I find
them difficult to navigate.

What I think the MMD needs is a 'Top 25' list which lists the 25 most
accessible A, G, and O rolls, for the 12 most accessible instruments.
For each of these there would be a .wav and a .mid dump of the tracker
bar.

Julie Porter