[squeaky-clean]

> Midi step sequences would have a hard time representing the "emotion" some composers are looking for.

They all allow different amounts of precision and interpretation of the performance. Staff notation is open to interpretation on the performance level. MIDI is an exact recording (or programming) of a performance.

With staff notation you can mark eighth notes and say "staccato, lag behind the beat", and there's an infinite number of subtly different ways to play it, even within the own composers interpretation. With MIDI, it would represented as "Note on A3, 12 pulses after first quarter note, velocity of 87. Note off A3, 54 pulses after first quarter note, velocity of 0. Note on C3 (etc....)". MIDI is great for computers (or routing signals during live performance) because it's exact.

[DarkLinkXXXX]

I don't think that's quite right. Different midi sequencers will play in a different way, based on the decisions of the midi sequencers author.

[squeaky-clean]

Not quite sure what you mean by a different way, or sequencers author. Do you mean the musician, or like Roland/Korg/ARP?

MIDI is a pretty exact specification. If a sequencer is changing the timing of anything, the underlying MIDI structures are not the same then. You can have different amounts of swing or different PPQ values, but then I wouldn't consider that "the same MIDI".

You can feed it to different sound generators of course, different drum machines, synths, a laptop, what-have-you, (most sequencers have both builtin together) but that's different from the MIDI itself.

[coldtea]

That's not how it works. MIDI is a standard.

Given a specific MIDI file, with specific applied quantization, they should absolutely play the same way -- the only exception is the timing resolution they offer and smallish latency issues (which in practice should be 100% transparent).