General midi cc architecture question

GUB

Some LFOs show what appear to be standardized or suggested assignments for CC#s -- e.g., 2 - breath controller.

Is this just part of a half-realized stab at standardization across apps? The CC#s themselves are indistinguishable in terms of actual functionality for the most part, correct?

ChrisLaarman

As I remember it (from some 25 years ago, when I was really into MIDI), a number of controllers (including continuous ones) had been officially standardized, with others being reserved for inside System Exclusive messages (which are vendor- or even model-specific, and get ignored by the rest). Besides, some not officially allocated ones may have become de-facto standards: the competing and conflicting additional standards GS (by Roland) and XG (by Yamaha).

You may find all answers at the source: the MIDI Association .

espiegel123

@GUB said:
Some LFOs show what appear to be standardized or suggested assignments for CC#s -- e.g., 2 - breath controller.

Is this just part of a half-realized stab at standardization across apps? The CC#s themselves are indistinguishable in terms of actual functionality for the most part, correct?

These mappings are a convention. Hardware manufacturers often adopted to standardize cc interpretations and some soft synths implement them as defaults. Their just suggested mappings.

GUB

OK, thx, that's what I figured.

I still find it interesting that there hasn't more of a coordinated effort across manufacturers to better standardize midi protocols. I gotta imagine the number of people who have not pursued using midi because of unnecessary complexity can't be trivial. Those were potential customers.

They can't even agree what number to assign to middle C, or what the lowest CC channel is? Maybe lack of cross-brand standards was a failed attempt to lock customers into a kind of forced brand loyalty? Just wild conspiracy theorizing, talking to myself, really

@espiegel123 said:

@GUB said:
Some LFOs show what appear to be standardized or suggested assignments for CC#s -- e.g., 2 - breath controller.

Is this just part of a half-realized stab at standardization across apps? The CC#s themselves are indistinguishable in terms of actual functionality for the most part, correct?

These mappings are a convention. Hardware manufacturers often adopted to standardize cc interpretations and some soft synths implement them as defaults. Their just suggested mappings.

espiegel123

@GUB: middle C is standardized in midi. Note 60 is middle c in the midi spec.

You are thinking of octave numbering which is not in the midi spec and precedes midi. When midi came around, there were already competing conventions.

It isn’t that there was a lack of effort to standardize…a lot of manufacturers adopted the conventions…most, even, when midi came out 40 years ago.

GUB

Thank you for the correction, although it’s a fairly pedantic initial reply considering the point I was making: Is there any reason why every drum app publisher doesn’t just employ a map that corresponds to the chromatic scale? That’s not a rhetorical question, there may well be. I just haven’t had it explained. Would anything be lost in terms of functionality if that happened, and is there any argument that it wouldn’t make things a whole lot simpler?

If your proof that there have been appreciable efforts to standardize is that a lot of manufacturers adopted conventions, but things haven’t improved much in the last half-century. It almost sounds like you’re describing destandardization if most manufacturers cooperated 40 years ago, but not today. But I’m not sure if that’s what you’re saying.

@espiegel123 said:
@GUB: middle C is standardized in midi. Note 60 is middle c in the midi spec.

You are thinking of octave numbering which is not in the midi spec and precedes midi. When midi came around, there were already competing conventions.

It isn’t that there was a lack of effort to standardize…a lot of manufacturers adopted the conventions…most, even, when midi came out 40 years ago.

mojozart

I know what you mean re. lack of standardization.

I was dealing with this most recently with sound modules for wind controllers.

I'm surprised there's been no mention of General MIDI (GM), which was one of the earliest standards:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_MIDI_standards

This archived article from Electronic Musician explains some of the reasons why GM did not generally apply:

GM Modules for the Masses

From the start, however, professional users grumbled about the dumbing down and homogenization of MIDI and computer-based music. Although such criticisms were unwarranted, MIDI soon faced serious competition from other camps. Digital audio, which many users deemed as more real, more cool, and more powerful than MIDI, gained suddenly in popularity. And from within the MIDI industry, the trend started to move from multitimbral boxes to more specifically hands-on instruments from new companies such as Clavia, Novation, Waldorf, Quasimidi, and Access.

General MIDI never really recovered from this double whammy. While GM modules continued to sell, and a niche market for Standard MIDI File (SMF) song libraries continued to grow, manufacturers began to show reservations about GM. In essence, they neither knew what to do with General MIDI nor what it could develop into, and that imbued the GM landscape with an almost apologetic air.