Ranking[edit]

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

"Main" and "Other" Categories[edit]

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)[reply]


I don't think the industry stats I have are in the public domain unfortunately, so I can't really cite them as a source. Grouping the sequencers by functionality might be a useful solution, and/or indicating those that are Linux based (which at least clarifies that those ones are probably not commercial nor very widely used). Ben Finn 10:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you're fine with such I'll go through and lump them into "Traditional", "Loop Based" and "Linux / UNIX" categories. Alternatively a table somewhat akin to some of the tables in Comparison of media players would be possible, but I think that'd likely be overkill. Scott.wheeler 01:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to hop in and say that the "main five" was extremely helpful to me when I had to choose one a few months ago. Is it possible to list the current list by popularity? Fire 18:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was that the "main five" was just someone's guess at what the main five are. If you can find a reliable source with sales figures then sure. However, there's the additional problem that sequencers aren't interchangeable. You can't really "choose" for instance between Reason and Protools. If one fits your needs the other almost certainly does not. At least all of the products left in the commercial category are major products with significant followings. What might be more appropriate would be a feature matrix. Scott.wheeler 21:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

What does a sequencer do?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Protools is a DAW. --Trweiss 14:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Tend to agree, but we probably need to look at the standard definition, and keep in mind that definitions can change. Sequencers may not record audio, but DAWs can "sequence" audio that is already recorded: they can copy and loop audio clips, time-stretch them, and arrange them in various ways. That goes beyond what a "recorder" does, so when we discuss sequencers, recorders and DAWs, we need to be specific about what function is being performed at a given time. Dementia13 (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

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. --- Nedkoself bias resist 11:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so do it Chavatshimshon 02:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that line is well defined enough to group things effectively. There are some pieces of software that fall clearly on one side of the line, but others like, say, Live (just one example from many) that don't clearly fit in one category. I think Commercial / Open Source / Free- or Shareware would probably be better groupings. Scott.wheeler 20:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most popular music sequencers[edit]

Which Music sequencer is the most popular one? An important detail that is left out here! Chavatshimshon 02:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've not had a responce and am I am putting the big four at the top of list to mark them out. Chavatshimshon 17:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

The "main five" is again both inaccurate and not sourced and I'm removing it again as such. The most important commercial sequencers / DAWs arguably are Logic, Live, Cubase, Protools, Sonar, Digital Performer and kind of amusingly, Garage Band, with Acid and Reason (and maybe even Fruity Loops, though it's even more removed from the mainstream) being somewhat arguable. The problem is that all of these have established niches and somewhat distinct markets. Reason can't be used for film scoring, Cubase wouldn't be used for live performance and so on. (Note that I do work in the music software industry, so this isn't just prognostication.) Scott.wheeler 20:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

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.

Orion is a software sequencer, but I can't be bothered to dig up citations at the moment. There are head-to-head comparison reviews of various sequencer packages that could be good reference sources. WP:SOFTWARE is mentioned as though it's a Wikipedia style guideline, but it now links to a WikiProject and has no information about criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Dementia13 (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ardour 3.0 and later has MIDI recording, playback, and editing.[8] I moved it under the DAW heading and removed the note about "No sequencer found).--dbolton (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Cubase screenshot.jpg[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Step sequencers and multitrack sequencers[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Software sequencers / DAWs with sequencing features[edit]

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)[reply]

Rename[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

List of undefined terminology/concepts on Wikipedia[edit]

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)[reply]

  1. MIDI sequencer
    Most sequencers on today are implemented as this type, however article Music sequencer nor MIDI seems not enough describe it. In my opinion, short clear definition may be needed on article "Music sequencer", and detailed descriptions on protocol support may be needed on article "MIDI", respectively.
  2. Software sequencer
    Similarly, most sequencers on today are also implemented as this type, however not enough mentioned on article "Music sequencer". Although I've already added several images (on Music_sequencer#Overview and Music_sequencer#Modern_sequencers) to show features and screen layout of it, however, the text descriptions on article body are still missing.
  3. Strip chart
    "Strip chart" is one of the most popular graphical user interface (GUI) on today's music software including Music sequencer, Digital audio workstation and these origin, Graphical sound. Several descriptions on it may be also needed on somewhere on Wikipedia. (currently not found)
  4. Numerical edit
    Slightly minor, but indispensable method to tweak details of digital data (MIDI and audio). It have been continuously used since earlier microcomputer-based sequencer until today's software sequencer/DAW.
  5. Phrase sampler     (text search: Special:Search/"Phrase_sampler")
  6. Phrase sequencer (text search: Special:Search/"Phrase_sequencer")
    These terms seems to be slightly popular on Wikipedia, however, no definitions are found on anywhere on Wikipedia. Possibly both terms have several relations to obscure term Audio sequencer (Once I'd try to find reliable sources on the definition of it, however, enough results were not found yet)
  7. Arpeggiator
    Although it is already mentioned on Synthesizer#Arpeggiator as a role/feature of synthesizer, still the descriptions as Music sequencer (i.e. several Arpeggiator support user defined sequence) is missing.
  8. Arranger keyboard (as a class of Music workstation or Home music keyboard)
  9. Auto accompaniment
  10. Auto accompaniment machine
    I've already slightly mentioned on Electronic_organ#Home_organs, etc, however, systematic description is still missing on Wikipedia. Historical origin seems to be exists on Mechanical organ, Gulbransen, Thomas Organ Company, and Hammond Piper. And on today, this concept is still used on home keyboard/arranger keyboard, backing machine for one-man band, and several real-time orchestration software.
  11. Acid bass machine
    It seems slightly popular concept since Firstman SQ-01 released in 1980/1981, however original generic article Acid machine was unreasonably merged into article on specific product Roland TB-303 in 2006. To distinguish generic concept from specific product, generic article may be needed. (Roland TB-303 is not the origin of this type of product).

--Clusternote (talk) 04:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional citations[edit]

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)[reply]

Hi, Hyacinth. I've already massively added citations mainly on #History section, however, other sections (including several subsection on #History) are still remained without enough citations. For example,
Also in my eyes, several problems were occurred due to its length and complexity. Possibly, the split of article may be appropriate for efficient improvement. For example, splitting into Main, History, and Listing, etc. --Clusternote (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit Reviewed[edit]

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)[reply]

Remove the lists of sequencers[edit]

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)[reply]

Support splitting off into list of music sequencers but separate lists for hardware and software. The article is already too long. -- Rob Kam (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moog modules[edit]

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)[reply]

Your editing was summarized as "ce" (copy edit) on history, however, your real editing is not what called "ce", thus partially reverted. Anyway, that long list should be kept as is for a while, until the completion of the split of article mentioned above. --Clusternote (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure that trimming trivial content shouldn’t be considered copy-editing… but admittedly, it was probably a bit more substantive a change than typical “ce” edits. I’ll keep it in mind, thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh, I see now, I misunderstood the layout of the list. I assumed that the two-column list following the two-item list at § Analog sequencers with CV/Gate interface was supposed to be a sublist of the second item. So is it supposed to be a single top-level list? If so, the template splits it in two (check the DOM tree). Sometimes, wikimarkup is too simple for its own good… —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, surely this list is very complicated since I tried to re-structuring the previous long random list, for a few years ago. Thus, it should be split to other article. Thanks for your sincere response. --Clusternote (talk) 06:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About that list article[edit]

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)[reply]

 Done ~Kvng (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Categories