At 04:56 PM 3/4/03 +0100, Mr. Liudas Motekaitis wrote: >The Bach *may* benefit but the Rachmaninoff is a plastic robot without soul.
I suppose, depending on how you think of it. It sounds refreshingly clean to me, but then I never cared for Rachmaninoff and his retro gesturing so insistent so far into the 20th century. :) It seems to me that the questions you ask are largely moot because acoustic instruments, one by one, are taking their slow walk into the museum of sonic history. Is it appropriate to play Bach using electronic means? Probably as much as it is to play it on a piano. Or transcribe it for orchestra. Or rework it through Rachmaninoff. Or Wendy Carlos. One composer even makes the point that any recording is already electronic and misrepresentative of the music, so where's the objection? Anything but live on a hand-made instrument adds a mechanical character. And as a composer, I hear performers misrepresent my music all the time, no matter what "spiritual ensemble" they may be calling on. They should have called me instead. I don't believe in what you describe as "the emotional and spiritual ensemble between one's individual fingers and hands." Even with something as inimate as the voice, ultimately you're a collection of parts (as the piano is, and as an electronic instrument is). If you move someone, it's because they're willing to be moved -- or at least have the acculturation and the humanity at the ready, humanity that's able to hear through the means of performance and even the performance itself to the artwork behind it. If "the emotional and spiritual ensemble between one's individual fingers and hands" helps the performer believe it's lubricating the mechanics in some deep way, then good for it. But I certainly mistrust the very idea, even find it a little distasteful. Maybe I'm just a cynical old guy, but 99% of what I hear performers do is just flat-out hubris. I *like* what Midi does because it stays out of the way of what I create. I recently had the premiere and half a dozen subsequent performances of some wonderful pieces. I was, to put it mildly, stunned by what had been done to them by "the emotional and spiritual ensemble between one's individual fingers and hands." Yes, as composers, we have to give up our pieces once their written down, but good grief, do we have to give them up for the (s)laughter? They were beautifully played, save for the fact that they spoke for the performer, not the composer. (And without Johann or Sergei around to ask, who's to say what speaks for them?) So I lean more and more toward creating electroacoustic pieces where there is no expectation of a performer, or if there is, at least it's enough of a fixed interaction that the performer's "emotional and spiritual ensemble" doesn't get out of hand. Or I write piece in which the performer has to be a compositional collaborator, making decisions on how musical elements are to be worked (not merely 'interpreted'). On the other hand, when I'm relaxed about the results or don't mind playing into the performance culture, I write for soloists or chamber groups or orchestras. (I'm waiting for the true "virtual orchestra" -- we're close, but without the visuals...) It might have been on this list that I mentioned the disconnection between compositional/performance intent and reception, using examples from my own compositions and performances. In any case, I won't review that. :) The whole business of realization is so unpredictable that I have lost track of what the performer actually *contributes* to clarity of communication, and am unconvinced that a technology like well-implemented electronically performed/enhanced sound removes anything from it. It sounds pretty darn good to me. So count me on the "blessing" side of your question. Dennis _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
