> >Then we can do with these works > >what we want, since they are ours to enjoy. > > That's the first convincing argument *for* the new copyright law extensions > -- keepin' yer doggone hands off'n 'em! :)
What I meant is that we are free to play, let's say the rubato, in one way when we are happy and in another way when we are sad. In one way when we are young and in another way when we are mature. In one way at time of war and in another way at a celebration. In your Midi scenario this element of expression is lacking. With MIDI, one creates a sound 'sculpture' which is made out of material which does not weather. It does not bend. It does not tear. It does not grow. It doesn't change appearance in the morning sunshine of Spring, nor does it throw a different shadow in the Winter. It is not fragile. It doesn't need to be looked after, cared for, and cherished. It doesn't need to be lived with. It is perfection. It needs no human to keep it alive. > we're talking about composition instead of theatre. Why should distortion > be the goal of performance when it is not the goal of the rest of the > process, from composition/orchestration/notation through sound reproduction? I think the lucky composer has friends of the musical calibre required to, at least generally, present the music as desired. But there are occasions where even very talented composers change their music in the event that a musician pointed something out, or even accidentally changed (missed) a note or two during the initial sight-reading, only to please the composer to such an extent as to have him change the score at that very instant. This happened to Shostakovich. I think a great composer composes great music. But I think a greater composer composes great playable music. For he/she is then composing for people: for musicians and for the public alike. > And, from my point of view, "as close to the original sound as possible" is > what can be more successfully and richly achieved if the composer is also > the realizer, whether acoustic or electronic. I'm wondering... would you drive better if you built your own car? Would you look better if you sewed your own clothes? Would you eat better if you cooked your own food? I trust a good cook, a good tailor and a good mechanic. I am saddend by a composer who has lost trust in musicians. > it is a question of hubris. Yes. The poor musician will always show off him/herself. The good one will delve into the music and show the music. > Perhaps you have prejudiced yourself against the very idea of the > effectiveness of this kind of musicianship just because it comes with the > white-coat technological raiment that you appear to abhor, or because you, > like most folks, do not want to consider the obsolescence of a trade they > value, whether its demise comes from hopes for efficiency or, more likely, > lack of interest. My thoughts about MIDI are clear: it is fun and easier to use and saves one time and money and is a great production tool and gives composers more control over what will happen acoustically and is the hottest new thing. But as with every new technological feat of mankind, we gain so much boldly and proudly, and at the same time unknowlingly we are robbed of some other much more subtle and meaningful aspect. Albert Einstein said it very well when he said: "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." > Already it is possible to adjust the layers of playback > samples (in the form of Soundfonts of Giga samples) at a level of detail > that as a composer I am, in reality, playing all the instruments with my > expression and technique. We can do this off list, but may I hear this, please? I would be very interested. Everything I have heard to date from the Gigasampler was a far cry from what a group of musicians can do. > The only part missing in Midi is simple failure > So no, I do not wind up with a human, I wind up with the performance as I > conceived it. I'm wondering if this has been done: I'm wondering if anyone would rise to the challange of imitating via Gigasampler/MIDI/Concert Hall Convulsion a real performance by real musicians. I'm thinking it can be done, but I'm thinking it will sound like the countless array of spiritless film and TV production music which is filling the airwaves these days. I'm wondering if children growing up listening to Gigasamper-cartoons are getting anything near what we got watching cartoons made by people playing real instruments (this sounds like an eternity ago, such is the speed of technological advance).. > So why work days on Ferneyhough when an afternoon with Brahms > will suffice? (That's the real underbelly of the music industry, right there.) Yes. Laziness. You are right. > Again, I think you have prejudiced yourself against it. First, we are still > using the Midi 1.0 specification. That 1.0, the first, the earliest is > still being explored, with generations to come. Secondly, though the Midi > portion is only the mechanical equivalent of the score, *because of its > implementation*, it is indeed capable of finer performance detail in the > final result than the bulk of any you'd hear by most gigging players. I assert that Midi in its perfection is in effect an AD/DA processor with a sampling rate of infinity. Anything less than that is watered down compositional intent. So if you tell a midi note to have velocity 68 or if you write "mf" in your score, in the acoustic event, the "mf" will have more chance of inspiring the musician/public than the 68 will. For the 'mf' is interpreted in an historical context whereas the 68 is defined by the volume control parameter as well as the instrument it is patched to, and other strictly electronic criteria. All controllable by the composer but none controllable at the time of performance. And once the living musical sculpture dries and hardens it is dead. Liudas _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
