[ Julian Dyer wrote in 030429 MMDigest: ]

> Whatever the above advantages, MIDI is certainly not the only standard
> file format that could be adopted.  For instance, the generic
> self-defining file format of the moment in XML, which (I understand)
> contains details of its data formats as well as the data itself.  Roll
> masters are 90% there in MIDI but would have to start from scratch in
> XML.  However, XML is readable as plain text so is more up-front than
> MIDI's efficient but complex binary format.  Any other suggestions
> of general formats that would suit? The test of whether a file format
> is doing the job that's required is that a roll can be translated
> ad infinitum between it any other roll-master file format with no loss
> of data.

My last "traditional" job before, making mechanical music my day job,
was working with XML.  I would tend to strongly disagree on the
suitability of this format for archival of anything long term.
Especially as my job was outsourced to India, along with the jobs of
50,000 of my friends.

XML is not plain text.  It can contain embedded binary objects.  MIME
encoding is popular at the moment.  A few years ago it was UU-encoding.
What will it be in the near future?

XML is also bloatware: it takes what a few years ago would be called
a supercomputer to store and process.

How many times, when I tell people that I am working full time on MIDI,
they say that they are themselves working on something "beyond MIDI."
The largest problem with MIDI in the real world is that there are no
patents to be had -- no monopoly to control 70 percent of the market,
no identity with a given manufacturer or brand.

Think about how much trouble the old producers of media on paper went
to make it so that their rolls only played on their instrument:
9-holes-per-inch (88-note), .1227 spacing (Wurlitzer), 8 perf, and the
various reproducing piano formats.  Yet all these are a "standard" --
they are a brand, a representation of quality.  That certain formats
have what is perceived as better arrangements is an arguable point.

I have 700+ "stencils" from about 30 different band organs.  There
is no universal panacea of "data" that can be converted to MIDI and
played on anything from a Radio Shack pulse-modulated loudspeaker
through to a totally MIDI-sequenced 1000-pipe player organ.

It seems that the blame for this rests on the file format, rather than
the data contained in the format.

A talented arranger can make a 20-note crank organ sound better than
a weak arrangement on the perfectly adjusted Duo-Art piano playing
a bad arrangement.  Does this mean that 20-note formats are better than
other formats?  I think we tend to loose sight of the problem and focus
more on the answer than on the question.

I have 8-per-inch computer tapes that are unreadable after 20 years.
I also collect other obsolete data formats, such as 12-inch LaserDisc
movies.  After 20 years it has been discovered that the vinyl used to
produce these discs is hydroscopic; this degradation process is called
"laser rot."  Since a LaserDisc is predominately an analog medium,
there is no error correction.

Audio CDs are similarly affected: you do not notice the degradation as
much as an audio or data CD containing error correction, where half the
data is on a different track than the other half and heavy use of CRC,
redundancy and parity.

Longevity estimates are made by the use of ovens and pressure chambers,
to see what the process of wetting and drying do to the object.  This
is why we think the media will last 80 or so years.  No one is really
sure.

I do know that some of my older +20 year audio CDs do not play as well
as they once did.  Since I keep the surfaces clean and buff out the
scratches, I can only attribute this to the so-called and controversial
CD rot, where the aluminum layer is corroded my moisture entering
hydroscopically through the vinyl or lacquer cover.  (The top of a CD
is only protected by a layer of paint; scratch this and it is bye-bye
data.)

Storage of music rolls is an issue that can be overcome.  One wall of
my house is dedicated to roll storage.  The total data contained therein
would probably fill a few CDs as MIDI files and about 40 CDs as WAV
audio data files.  Yet it is much easier to loose or misplace the latter
given the small size.  It is a lot harder to loose 25 cubic feet of
roll boxes!  It is much easier to look at my paper index, open the box
and remove a roll that I want.

Sure, I can use some sort of indexed database, and look for a title
or a classification, then have the computer search through 800 or so
songs.  Can I do this without affecting Moore's Law and upgrading every
18 months?

When I worked in digital printing I learned that a few of my friends
were font collectors -- collecting the digital typefaces scanned in
from the old metal and optical types.  How they would brag about having
10,000 or 25,000 fonts.  A few entrepreneurs made CDs of large
quantities of fonts.

The only way to deal with such large quantity, is to break the number
of units into smaller groups.  In music these are called play lists or
albums.  Most people do not need more than 40 to 120 minutes of music
for any given session.  Why then do people need 10,000 songs?

Are we merely completist philologists trying to complete the stamp
collection?  Should a museum contain one of every example statically
displayed and catalogued, accessible between 9 AM and 2:45 PM on the
fifth Friday of each month?

We also tend to forget that if one is working with post-1921 music,
then there is a fee called a needle drop that is due to the copyright
holder.  Those people own music, like people once owned slaves.  Their
music is no more than property -- something that can be borrowed
against and not played lest the value of the rare song become sullen.

This license is a large factor in only placing a few songs onto a given
media.  For analogue the fee is a few cents to 25 cents or so.  For
"MIDI" it is two dollars and fifty cents.  This is why so many like
Yamaha have a "proprietary format that is not MIDI."

Branding remains important.  We like Wurlitzer and Aeolian from their
marketing campaigns in the 1920s and '30s.  Some people collect this
advertising.  It is a good lesson in how to market something.  I love
looking at the old adverts myself.

In the end this is why something survives, because it is perceived as
better than the rest, or there is more of it and more equates with
better.  Paper has this advantage that CDs or floppies do not.  But,
in the end, it all comes down to the arrangement of the music and the
instrument the music is intended to play upon.

Julie Porter