Thanks for the response - I very much appreciate it.
1 - Rats, that's a shame. I would have thought that the parameter would be in a single storage location and just change in value, not increase in size. Speaking personally, I'd take fewer memories for expanded functionality, but it's not just about me, of course!
2 - That's not a solution for me, I'm afraid. I'm performing *live* with NDLR, changing chords with my left hand and playing lead with my right. The last thing I want to have to do is use a fixed sequence.
3 - I'm glad this sounds sensible. It would be good to have this one fixed.
To put this into perspective, this is all about performing *live* with the NDLR, something I'm very keen to do as part of my set (once we're back to some sort of 'normailty', of course!). I'm currently generating a rhythm into my in-ears to help me with (1) above, but that does kill the feel, TBH.
Again, thanks for responding.
1 - Rats, that's a shame. I would have thought that the parameter would be in a single storage location and just change in value, not increase in size. Speaking personally, I'd take fewer memories for expanded functionality, but it's not just about me, of course!
2 - That's not a solution for me, I'm afraid. I'm performing *live* with NDLR, changing chords with my left hand and playing lead with my right. The last thing I want to have to do is use a fixed sequence.
3 - I'm glad this sounds sensible. It would be good to have this one fixed.
To put this into perspective, this is all about performing *live* with the NDLR, something I'm very keen to do as part of my set (once we're back to some sort of 'normailty', of course!). I'm currently generating a rhythm into my in-ears to help me with (1) above, but that does kill the feel, TBH.
Again, thanks for responding.