Researching a book on the MPC60 - Thoughts?

mr_debauch wrote:

psr wrote:he made a mistake in retrospect with the 4x4 pad design. something about ergonomics and flexibility of finger drumming that the 2x8 design is better.

he said that in some of his videos too... sometimes it felt like he was saying that cause his tempest has that layout... however he does make a good point with both hands side by side when he shows what he means in the video...

Retrospect is fine and all that, but I don't recall anyone finger drumming in the 80's. I also believe those comments were attempting to promote the Tempest. The Linn 9000 had a good pad matrix that sort of fits with Rogers comments. That is a discussion worthy of its own thread, don't want to derail this.

clint246clint wrote:Retrospect is fine and all that, but I don't recall anyone finger drumming in the 80's. I also believe those comments were attempting to promote the Tempest. The Linn 9000 had a good pad matrix that sort of fits with Rogers comments. That is a discussion worthy of its own thread, don't want to derail this.

yeah sorry... I can't remember if it was mentioned in here.. but somewhere I remember hearing that the 4x4 layout was a cost saving measure (or it was inspired by a reduction in cost compared to a 1/16 or other potential layouts) However it turned out to be a hit, unlike later similar types of attempts of cutting monetary corners with pad sensors like we saw in the original 1000... I guess mentioning that might be a cool "neat fact" if you can find out where that was mentioned and quote it for the book.

Good to hear the ASQ will get a mention. Why did you need to buy two?

Oh, kickstarter is definitely something to give serious consideration to.

labcoats wrote:Good to hear the ASQ will get a mention. Why did you need to buy two?

One had a few issues, so I put all the best parts into the keeper and sold one on. I cant be writing about stuff that I've never owned or put to the test, so some expenditure has been required. In fact I have to rebuild the studio following 'semi-retirement'. Not taking this lightly, there is some pressure to get this right.

Understood.

Clint wrote:

labcoats wrote:Good to hear the ASQ will get a mention. Why did you need to buy two?

One had a few issues, so I put all the best parts into the keeper and sold one on. I cant be writing about stuff that I've never owned or put to the test, so some expenditure has been required. In fact I have to rebuild the studio following 'semi-retirement'. Not taking this lightly, there is some pressure to get this right.

Clint I fully support you on this man. Its a major undertaking. I can tell you are focused and committed. I will support your effort and a kickstarter campaign without doubt.

Much appreciated psr.

Kickstarter gives you 60 days (maximum) to raise the funds, and its an all or nothing type deal. Reach your target, funds are released and the project can proceed. Fail to reach your target and you get no funding whatsoever. For such a niche publication as an MPC60 book, that would be my main concern; getting five or six backers from the forums lol.

But seriously, there is more to this publishing business than meets the eye. I will most likely be calling upon MPC-Tutor for advice, he has experience publishing e-books and articles. He offered his support early on, before the true extent of all this dawned upon me.

If any of you have any useful skills relating to graphic design/page layout, artwork, photography, video production, web design, marketing, promotion etc drop me an email [email protected].

Now have the SP1200 book in my hands for review, thanks to Pilchard who I met with over the weekend. Time to see what all the fuss is/was about and learn a few lessons...rather conveniently I now have an E-MU Drumulator, SP12 Turbo and SP1200.

mr_debauch wrote:

clint246clint wrote:Retrospect is fine and all that, but I don't recall anyone finger drumming in the 80's. I also believe those comments were attempting to promote the Tempest. The Linn 9000 had a good pad matrix that sort of fits with Rogers comments. That is a discussion worthy of its own thread, don't want to derail this.

yeah sorry... I can't remember if it was mentioned in here.. but somewhere I remember hearing that the 4x4 layout was a cost saving measure (or it was inspired by a reduction in cost compared to a 1/16 or other potential layouts) However it turned out to be a hit, unlike later similar types of attempts of cutting monetary corners with pad sensors like we saw in the original 1000... I guess mentioning that might be a cool "neat fact" if you can find out where that was mentioned and quote it for the book.

interesting.. i think that could be worth mentioning, also fwiw.. the LM-1 (Linn's first ever drum machine) was 9x2, the LinnDrum was 8x2, Linn9000 6x3, MPC60/3000 4x4, Tempest 8x2 & the new Linnstrument "drum display" is 12x4.

it seems obvious Linn experimented many different configs, which i'm sure relate to the overall concept & interface of each respective unit. in the case of the 60/3000, i think the transport control was a big deal back then and the overall form factor was a direct heritage from the MG recorders:



also would be curious to know why the pads and screen were flipped sides on the 3K..

Another dodgy looking MPC60 print on demand ebay 'book'...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/140939759351

Looks like a great read that, cant wait to get my hands on it!

mr_debauch wrote: but somewhere I remember hearing that the 4x4 layout was a cost saving measure (or it was inspired by a reduction in cost compared to a 1/16 or other potential layouts) However it turned out to be a hit... I guess mentioning that might be a cool "neat fact" if you can find out where that was mentioned and quote it for the book.

I also remember reading the 4x4 layout came about due to cost implications, but I cannot trace the source interview. Can anybody send me a link if they have it please.

[email protected]

Clint wrote:

mr_debauch wrote: but somewhere I remember hearing that the 4x4 layout was a cost saving measure (or it was inspired by a reduction in cost compared to a 1/16 or other potential layouts) However it turned out to be a hit... I guess mentioning that might be a cool "neat fact" if you can find out where that was mentioned and quote it for the book.

I also remember reading the 4x4 layout came about due to cost implications, but I cannot trace the source interview. Can anybody send me a link if they have it please.

Was mentioned here...
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=99925&p=1533583&hilit=numark#p1516894

Cheers saw that, my part fried brain cells told me there a written interview. I guess not. Back to the task...