You are right Stu. I was being quite simplistic and a little flippant in my comment.
However, the best of midi playback still does not give you an honest representation of
what real human beings, playing a real acoustic instruments will sound like.
One simplistic example may be flutes. Sure they can easily play C1 and C4 and you can
write the flute to play 4 beats of eigth note alternating between the two. Midi will
certainly execute that musch better than most flute players.
I often find with real acoustic instruments the richness of overtones and perhaps some
sympathetic vibrations, I may faintly hear another note which is not written. For
example, in a simple minor triad with acoustic instruments, I can often hear a faint
9th that is not being played by anyone. I've never heard that from a midi instrument.
I also find that tight harmonies with acoustic instruments often sound very good, but
on an electronic module, no matter what the patch, can sound quite muddy.
So midi playback while writing may be a helpful tool, but it is not always a truthful
tool. A good composer/arranger will still need a good inner sense to guide him/her
through amidi mine field of sound.
Harold
On Tuesday, July 16, 2002 3:18 PM, Stu McIntire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Here's how: by trying multiple options and selecting the one(s) they like
>best for further manipulation, like Stravinsky did.
>
>People who work like this have a feedback loop between what they
>conceptualize based on what they know, and what they see, what they hear,
>and even what they feel (as in what the hands reach for on the keyboard,
>because the body has its ways of knowing, too.) What is perceived in these
>different ways is synthesized, options are compared and contrasted, a
>million little decisions are made, and the tinker's cart rolls on until the
>work is done.
>This statement below is an old saw that's an ideal that does not map to the
>real world, in particular today's world, when the option of creating notated
>music is open to a far greater percentage of the population than it was when
>attitudes like this evolved. There are composers and arrangers who have not
>developed their inner ear to the extent that they need no help hearing their
>work product as it unfolds who are nevertheless very creative and skilled.
>There are composers and arrangers who have terrific ears, need no such help,
>and turn out lifeless, derivative music. Quality of final product, however
>it might me measured, is not necessarily related to or dependent on this
>skill being developed to a high degree. It helps, it saves time, but you
>don't pack it in if this skill ain't there.
>
>This ability is not absolute, either; as musicians work on this skill, their
>upper threshold of complexity gets higher. However, at some level of
>complexity - number of voices, density, speed, level of chromaticism, etc. -
>everyone maxes out. Babbitt and Carter do not "hear" what they are creating
>in total. Many other capable people cannot "hear" three independent lines,
>or cannot hear ad hoc simultaneities beyond a certain number of notes ("ad
>hoc" meaning those that aren't "canned" and already known from experience,
>like a jazz arranger would "hear" a m13b9 chord). This emphatically does not
>mean they should stay within what they can hear in their inner ear as they
>compose.
>
>Haydn famously played works in progress for the group under his control, and
>used the feedback to modify and keep developing his music. I think this
>skill became highly valued more for the practical aspects of it - most
>composers do not have the luxury of hearing their music as it unfolds if
>they are writing for instruments they don't play (or can't play
>simultaneously!), and this skill allows one to work faster and therefore
>presumably make a better living.
>
>Stu
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Harold Steinhardt
>Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 3:22 PM
>To: David H. Bailey; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: finale list
>Subject: Re: [Finale] RE: orchestral MIDI
>
>
>
>
>On Tuesday, July 16, 2002 12:43 PM, David H. Bailey
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>Finale is NOT just a page-layout program for engravers, it is
>also a
>
>>tool used by arrangers and composers who want to hear how what they
>are
>>working on sounds
>>
>
>If an arranger or a composer does not know what it will sound like
>BEFORE notating it, then they do not know their art/craft very well. If
>they don't already know what it will sound like, how do they
>determine what to write in the first place?
>
>Finale: The Art Of Music Notation.
>
>
>Harold
>
>_______________________________________________
>Finale mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
>
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
