This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
A member of the Guild of Copy Editors reviewed a version of this article for copy editing. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for {{ copyedit}}. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our project page if you are interested in joining! |
The contents of the Audio sequencer page were merged into Music sequencer on 21 July 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
I think this article would be improved by highlighting which samplers are most popular and/or powerful and/or easy-to-use etc. The POV line is harder to cross if they're not ranked - just isolating a few into a group and perhaps giving quotes from established websites to justify the view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matturn ( talk • contribs) 04:17, 27 April 2005
User:Bfinn said this in my users page after I removed the "Main" and "Other" categories in the sequencer's links:
Re Music sequencer, the point of the 'main' and 'other' categories was (as in the Scorewriter article) to distinguish between those that are widely used from the obscure ones, which I should think is useful information for at least some people. The big 4 in terms of market share are undoubtedly Logic, ProTools, Cubase and Cakewalk. (I have some industry stats on these.) I'd guess that Digital Performer comes next. Of the rest in the list, Reason and to a lesser extent Acid are quite widely used; GarageBand increasingly so too, though the fact that it is effectively free makes it a special case. But most of the rest are very obscure products AFAIK.
I don't personally think that main and other are reasonable encyclopedia terms. If you've got actual dated statistics with sources and all that which could be included they would come across as less arbitrary.
But as you said this gets tricky; truth be told GarageBand is probably the most used, but I'm not sure how "main" that makes it. Ableton Live I would guess is probably up there with Reason and possibly Acid -- it's at least the competing product to those two and gets a similar amount of press attention. Many of the rest on the rest on the list are special because they're Linux only.
I suppose some of my opposition to those terms as well is that it kind of implies that they're interchangeable and that there are some that are market leaders whereas I think more appropriate categorization might point out that there are in fact functional groups -- based on features, focus, platform, price, etc. Scott.wheeler 02:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I did finally stumble across some US sales figures and was a little surprised by them. I'm going to see if I'm allowed to source them. Just a hint -- two the the undoubtedly top 4 are not in the top 4.
Scott.wheeler 13:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
MIDI control information is what a sequencer records. They do not record audio. That would be a recorder. Often, the software blends these features leading to confusion about which is which. I've edited the article to make this more clear. -- Trweiss 14:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
That may have once been the distinction, but not any more. Products called 'sequencers' are nowadays used as much for audio as for MIDI; ProTools for many years didn't support MIDI at all AFAIK (though I imagine was called a sequencer then, and certainly is now). Ben Finn 20:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
There was a recent change which removed this language again. I'm going to re-add the note about the traditional definition vs. the way that it's commonly used now. If anyone objects please note that here and we can try for a consensus. Scott.wheeler 00:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I have been using sequencers of various sorts since the early 80's. To my recollection there has never been any move to call audio based recording software a sequencer as such. In fact, when :Protools first appeared it was very much an audio editing platform and only touted as that. Also, a sequencer simply records control information, not specifically MIDI as they existed before MIDI was created and became widespread. That MIDI has become the de-facto language of sequencers is down to a desire to have cross-platform compatibility and to take advantage of the changes to, and ranges of, hardware (and now software) that respond to MIDI control structures. Bandcoach ( talk) 14:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I propose to split the list of software sequencers to separate "software sequencers" and "DAWs with sequencing features" and yet another split (maybe first) to open source/closed source applications. --- Nedko self bias resist 11:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Which Music sequencer is the most popular one? An important detail that is left out here! Chavatshimshon 02:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with the currently listed "top five." Reason is undoubtedly one of the best sequencers I've used yet.
CaptainHowdy2528 02:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
This was the list of sequencers I removed. I went through the entire list doing a little research on each. There were a few main reasons for removal:
The first four items are somewhat arguable. I'd be fine with them being readded if another semi-established WP editor wants them in. The others I'd expect to see citations to proove that they meet WP:SOFTWARE.
Also remember that there is no need to have an exhaustive list in this article. At some point it make make more sense to simply create a category and then to weed out the non-notable members from there.
I also combined multiple sequencers from the same company onto one line.
Image:Cubase screenshot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 20:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
What the hell is a sequencer. The first sentence "A music sequencer (also MIDI sequencer or just sequencer) is software or hardware designed to create and manage computer-generated music" presumably says it's any thing designed to create music created by computers. so a computer that makes music?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.74.227 ( talk) 21:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I think this article is a bit too techncial and as a total novice I'm still unable to understand if I can connect my musical instrument to the computer and use any of the software listed to create music!!! Elncid ( talk) 02:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I think there should be made seperate lists for simple step sequencers (such as the Moog 960 or the FutureRetro Mobius) and advanced multitrack midi sequencers (such as the Akai MPC or the Alesis MT-8). Both the concepts of how they work and their uses are different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.255.141 ( talk) 23:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I've rewritten this page to (hopefully) better reflect the evolution of the sequencer, and the distinction between step sequencers and modern sequencers, two essentially very different technologies with different uses. I've also trimmed the list of hardware sequencers to include devices that are solely or primarily sequencers, but exclude synthesizers that happen to have sequencers as a minor feature. Zoeb ( talk) 21:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I suggest this section is removed by merging into List of MIDI editors and sequencers, rather than pointlessly duplicating it. Ben Finn ( talk) 13:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I propose the article should be renamed to Sequencer (music), as in my experience they are almost always referred to as 'sequencers', not 'music sequencers'. Ben Finn ( talk) 13:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd support you on this one - it was always "put that into the sequencer" rather than "put that into the music sequencer" when they first arrived in our studio in the mid 1980's. Bandcoach ( talk) 14:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree too. However, the sequencer DAB page lists four types of sequencers. If we rename this page to Sequencer (music), then we may want to rename the other sequencer pages too for consistency. Gbeeker ( talk) 11:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
While I've edited this article, I've recognized that several important terminologies and concepts related to Music sequencer seem not enough mentioned on anywhere on Wikipedia. Most of them are sub-concepts of more larger concepts already mentioned on several existing articles, thus, we can solve the issue by adding descriptions on existing articles and adding redirection for each description, IMO. -- Clusternote ( talk) 04:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
-- Clusternote ( talk) 04:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth ( talk) 07:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
There's a copy edit tag on this page, but the issues here are far deeper than what a copy edit can fix. A copy edit will clean up the grammar, but this page needs to be overhauled by an experienced editor. Any changes made during the copy edit would likely be discarded, so it would be a waste of time. The page is full of hearsay statements and has almost no citations. The reason for citations is to encourage better-researched pages, which in turn avoids the kind of semi-accurate information that shows up here. There is also a ton of cruft, such as in the sections that list various sequencers. This is not meant to be a comprehensive resource, so if you're going to list an item, especially one too obscure to have its own Wikipedia page, you need to provide a citation and explain why listing it adds to anybody's understanding of the subject. Dementia13 ( talk) 19:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The sections on hardware and software sequencers seem to be excessive lists. Is there any objection to removing them? Or else, can we split them off into stand-alone lists? — 174.141.182.82 ( talk) 07:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
In response to this partial revert by User:Clusternote: That was not an accidental removal. I removed the (improperly formatted) list of modules because it didn’t seem to me like this article needed that much detail. Is there a need to specify the particular modules by name? — 174.141.182.82 ( talk) 19:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Can someone create it and move the lists from here? Also, has anyone done a notability check—do these lists of commercial products satisfy WP:N? — 174.141.182.82 ( talk) 22:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Done ~ Kvng ( talk) 16:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Music sequencer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Music sequencer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://www.scribd.com/doc/93116556/The-History-of-Electronic-and-Experimental-Music-in-JapanWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
A member of the Guild of Copy Editors reviewed a version of this article for copy editing. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for {{ copyedit}}. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our project page if you are interested in joining! |
The contents of the Audio sequencer page were merged into Music sequencer on 21 July 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
I think this article would be improved by highlighting which samplers are most popular and/or powerful and/or easy-to-use etc. The POV line is harder to cross if they're not ranked - just isolating a few into a group and perhaps giving quotes from established websites to justify the view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matturn ( talk • contribs) 04:17, 27 April 2005
User:Bfinn said this in my users page after I removed the "Main" and "Other" categories in the sequencer's links:
Re Music sequencer, the point of the 'main' and 'other' categories was (as in the Scorewriter article) to distinguish between those that are widely used from the obscure ones, which I should think is useful information for at least some people. The big 4 in terms of market share are undoubtedly Logic, ProTools, Cubase and Cakewalk. (I have some industry stats on these.) I'd guess that Digital Performer comes next. Of the rest in the list, Reason and to a lesser extent Acid are quite widely used; GarageBand increasingly so too, though the fact that it is effectively free makes it a special case. But most of the rest are very obscure products AFAIK.
I don't personally think that main and other are reasonable encyclopedia terms. If you've got actual dated statistics with sources and all that which could be included they would come across as less arbitrary.
But as you said this gets tricky; truth be told GarageBand is probably the most used, but I'm not sure how "main" that makes it. Ableton Live I would guess is probably up there with Reason and possibly Acid -- it's at least the competing product to those two and gets a similar amount of press attention. Many of the rest on the rest on the list are special because they're Linux only.
I suppose some of my opposition to those terms as well is that it kind of implies that they're interchangeable and that there are some that are market leaders whereas I think more appropriate categorization might point out that there are in fact functional groups -- based on features, focus, platform, price, etc. Scott.wheeler 02:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I did finally stumble across some US sales figures and was a little surprised by them. I'm going to see if I'm allowed to source them. Just a hint -- two the the undoubtedly top 4 are not in the top 4.
Scott.wheeler 13:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
MIDI control information is what a sequencer records. They do not record audio. That would be a recorder. Often, the software blends these features leading to confusion about which is which. I've edited the article to make this more clear. -- Trweiss 14:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
That may have once been the distinction, but not any more. Products called 'sequencers' are nowadays used as much for audio as for MIDI; ProTools for many years didn't support MIDI at all AFAIK (though I imagine was called a sequencer then, and certainly is now). Ben Finn 20:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
There was a recent change which removed this language again. I'm going to re-add the note about the traditional definition vs. the way that it's commonly used now. If anyone objects please note that here and we can try for a consensus. Scott.wheeler 00:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I have been using sequencers of various sorts since the early 80's. To my recollection there has never been any move to call audio based recording software a sequencer as such. In fact, when :Protools first appeared it was very much an audio editing platform and only touted as that. Also, a sequencer simply records control information, not specifically MIDI as they existed before MIDI was created and became widespread. That MIDI has become the de-facto language of sequencers is down to a desire to have cross-platform compatibility and to take advantage of the changes to, and ranges of, hardware (and now software) that respond to MIDI control structures. Bandcoach ( talk) 14:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I propose to split the list of software sequencers to separate "software sequencers" and "DAWs with sequencing features" and yet another split (maybe first) to open source/closed source applications. --- Nedko self bias resist 11:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Which Music sequencer is the most popular one? An important detail that is left out here! Chavatshimshon 02:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with the currently listed "top five." Reason is undoubtedly one of the best sequencers I've used yet.
CaptainHowdy2528 02:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
This was the list of sequencers I removed. I went through the entire list doing a little research on each. There were a few main reasons for removal:
The first four items are somewhat arguable. I'd be fine with them being readded if another semi-established WP editor wants them in. The others I'd expect to see citations to proove that they meet WP:SOFTWARE.
Also remember that there is no need to have an exhaustive list in this article. At some point it make make more sense to simply create a category and then to weed out the non-notable members from there.
I also combined multiple sequencers from the same company onto one line.
Image:Cubase screenshot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 20:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
What the hell is a sequencer. The first sentence "A music sequencer (also MIDI sequencer or just sequencer) is software or hardware designed to create and manage computer-generated music" presumably says it's any thing designed to create music created by computers. so a computer that makes music?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.74.227 ( talk) 21:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I think this article is a bit too techncial and as a total novice I'm still unable to understand if I can connect my musical instrument to the computer and use any of the software listed to create music!!! Elncid ( talk) 02:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I think there should be made seperate lists for simple step sequencers (such as the Moog 960 or the FutureRetro Mobius) and advanced multitrack midi sequencers (such as the Akai MPC or the Alesis MT-8). Both the concepts of how they work and their uses are different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.255.141 ( talk) 23:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I've rewritten this page to (hopefully) better reflect the evolution of the sequencer, and the distinction between step sequencers and modern sequencers, two essentially very different technologies with different uses. I've also trimmed the list of hardware sequencers to include devices that are solely or primarily sequencers, but exclude synthesizers that happen to have sequencers as a minor feature. Zoeb ( talk) 21:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I suggest this section is removed by merging into List of MIDI editors and sequencers, rather than pointlessly duplicating it. Ben Finn ( talk) 13:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I propose the article should be renamed to Sequencer (music), as in my experience they are almost always referred to as 'sequencers', not 'music sequencers'. Ben Finn ( talk) 13:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd support you on this one - it was always "put that into the sequencer" rather than "put that into the music sequencer" when they first arrived in our studio in the mid 1980's. Bandcoach ( talk) 14:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree too. However, the sequencer DAB page lists four types of sequencers. If we rename this page to Sequencer (music), then we may want to rename the other sequencer pages too for consistency. Gbeeker ( talk) 11:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
While I've edited this article, I've recognized that several important terminologies and concepts related to Music sequencer seem not enough mentioned on anywhere on Wikipedia. Most of them are sub-concepts of more larger concepts already mentioned on several existing articles, thus, we can solve the issue by adding descriptions on existing articles and adding redirection for each description, IMO. -- Clusternote ( talk) 04:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
-- Clusternote ( talk) 04:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth ( talk) 07:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
There's a copy edit tag on this page, but the issues here are far deeper than what a copy edit can fix. A copy edit will clean up the grammar, but this page needs to be overhauled by an experienced editor. Any changes made during the copy edit would likely be discarded, so it would be a waste of time. The page is full of hearsay statements and has almost no citations. The reason for citations is to encourage better-researched pages, which in turn avoids the kind of semi-accurate information that shows up here. There is also a ton of cruft, such as in the sections that list various sequencers. This is not meant to be a comprehensive resource, so if you're going to list an item, especially one too obscure to have its own Wikipedia page, you need to provide a citation and explain why listing it adds to anybody's understanding of the subject. Dementia13 ( talk) 19:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The sections on hardware and software sequencers seem to be excessive lists. Is there any objection to removing them? Or else, can we split them off into stand-alone lists? — 174.141.182.82 ( talk) 07:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
In response to this partial revert by User:Clusternote: That was not an accidental removal. I removed the (improperly formatted) list of modules because it didn’t seem to me like this article needed that much detail. Is there a need to specify the particular modules by name? — 174.141.182.82 ( talk) 19:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Can someone create it and move the lists from here? Also, has anyone done a notability check—do these lists of commercial products satisfy WP:N? — 174.141.182.82 ( talk) 22:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Done ~ Kvng ( talk) 16:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Music sequencer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Music sequencer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://www.scribd.com/doc/93116556/The-History-of-Electronic-and-Experimental-Music-in-JapanWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)