At 12:47 AM 3/5/03 +0100, Mr. Liudas Motekaitis wrote:
>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.
I think we're at a point of misunderstanding terms. [I am not discussing my
electroacoustic pieces any more here, because they are written for the
medium.]
Let me clear up my side of it.
Midi has not for some years created an unchanging/unchangeable result. It
is made to interpret a score as requested, and can be varied as needed. It
is a communications protocol over which all sorts of information can be
sent, both fixed ("recorded", if you will) and live. There are control
boxes which make Midi the efficient and invisible go-between in realtime
performance. For example, the "mulchers", as they call themselves, are
users of performance host software AudioMulch (http://www.audiomulch.com/)
that incorporates algorthmic development, VST plugins, and Midi control
codes. It can be used in a live situation or a fixed one.
As for control boxes, have a look at this to see what I mean with this
Mackie live Midi controller:
http://www.mackie.com/record/mackiecontrol/index.html
That said, what Midi does *not* do (save for its limited bandwidth which in
some older hardware configurations results in delays) is make a situation
unpredictable. Fingers do not slide sharp or flat, and practiced notes do
not fail. Failure is only an *option*.
And so it does not require hiring and rehearsing personnel and explaining
to them in score and verbally what is needed. If, as a composer, you can
write it down in terms the technology can work with, it can play your
requests without complaint or failure.
None of that implies the absence of rubato or other expressions when you
have the control pad in hand.
>I think the lucky composer has friends of the musical calibre required to,
>at least generally, present the music as desired.
The operant word is "lucky". And that is far from typical. I am
occasionally lucky and my performers "at least generally present the music
as desired". For my taste, Midi does it better. But keep in mind that,
except for fixed pieces that are completed in electronic form, I create
scores. Creating scores implies performance. It just happens that I am not
frequently among the "lucky" (or wealthy or well-connected) composers for
whom hearing the music presented "as desired" is a commonplace.
>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.
It happens to everyone. But Midi is also a healthy & happy proofreader. :)
>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.
A matter of taste. There are artists who don't mind writing for the
musicians at hand all the time. I'd guess that far better than half of my
pieces are indeed such (http://maltedmedia.com/scores/) or I wouldn't be
favored with commissions. The audience is happy and the performers are
happy. This composer, however, is not often happy, and returns home to
brood over the insufficient rehearsal time (two hours for 30 minutes of
music?), slapdash practising, and "good enough for new music" attitudes.
As performance quality falters in the new nonpop realms, the great
composer, I think, is also required to keep discipline on the ears and
fingers of the performers. Our responsibility is no longer merely to
entertain with the jongleurs du roi. We're among the last keepers of the
keys to advancement in performance practice and listening skills.
>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.
My art is not cars or clothes or food. If it were, I would indeed do it
myself. Yes, cooking and sewing are part of our household, for both of us,
and those meals and clothes are far more valued than a trip to the
restaurant or the department store. And until recently, both my wife and I
did repair our own vehicles -- there's no longer enough time, so we make do
with less-than-optimal generic service now. (Let's not talk about the
horses...)
But art demands more than a meal or transportation. And it's *my* art, so
it matters very much to me. I've spent my life in shoddy day jobs to
support now 39 years of composing, and do not comfortably hand it over to
the uncommitted. I am not sympathetic to performers who consistently
violate my trust by skipping rehearsals or premiering a work that is not
yet ready to be heard.
I work very hard for them, and it's not often they return the favor.
Sometimes they do, even if the results are very flawed. That I appreciate.
For example, last year my flute concerto "Mirrored Birds" was premiered by
the local symphony. It was a half-hour-long, unrelenting, high minimalism
work for which I was paid the princely commission fee of $300. They played
their hearts out. Did it realize my music to my satisfaction? Not at all.
The Midi version was far better. Was it a wonderful performance? Yes. I was
humbled by their dedication.
And I think it's at moments like that where we'd agree.
>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.
Just as harmony robbed us of modality, and orchestration of the subtleties
of the voice? It's no loss if we can gain it back when we realize, through
study, what has been lost. Jazz gave us back modality (no, it wasn't
Bartók), and the voice is returning more every year (largely in the pop
world in such voices as Bjork, I feel). (Another discussion, yet again.)
But that's not the question for me, and again, I also don't think we're
talking about Midi production is shared terms.
Midi is neither fun nor easier to use. It takes more time to render a
proper Midi version than to practice it and play it -- but it *does* save
money, you're right (once the investment in equipment and software is paid
off).
Aside from the electroacoustic pieces, my own Midi work is mostly
demonstration or video realizations -- pieces to help performers and
conductors learn the music, pieces to demo the music to performers who need
to drive and listen and can't/won't sit to read a score to audition it, to
promote my music via my website where the music either has not yet been
premiered or the performances are unsuitable, and roughly polished versions
for backgrounding videos.
True Midi geniuses, from the X-Files music of Mark Snow to the
aforementioned Jerry Gerber, create both convincing performances -- and
keep in mind that these are fixed performances, just as nearly every piece
of music the population at large hears is from fixed (recorded)
performances -- and invest them with all the conductor/performer-style
evocativeness and passion that their scoring and their performance skills
allow them. Midi devices *are* their instruments.
And to return to the simplest of terms: With Midi, failure is only an
option, not an expectation.
>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.
I recommend the Gerber recordings. "Moon Festival" is on Ottava and "The
Art of Midi" is appearing next month on the same label. (I wrote the
program notes for both these recordings, so I've listened to them for
dozens of hours. I also know where they fail, but I'll leave that discovery
to you.)
>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.
If that's your goal, I have no doubt it's possible.
But.
And here it comes. :)
When you have Midi and its related technologies at hand, what an orchestra
can do is simply no longer satisfying enough as a means of communication.
Just a few things come immediately to mind: An orchestra cannot perform a
fractal progression unless I notate it. Software can. An orchestra cannot
morph timbres unless I write an exceedingly complex orchestration that is
precisely carried out. Software can. An orchestra cannot play instruments
out of their ranges. Software can. An orchestra can not render an algorithm
of pitch, rhythmic and timbral exchange. Software can.
I love orchestral music. When I write for them, I write for them. But that
is all. And the string quartet may still be the ultimate instrumental
grouping, but alas, it is left with being instrumental. So for me, when
more is needed as it increasingly is, they are left behind.
Our disagreement, I think, comes from how we believe music is made.
Acoustic squawkboxes and tubes and other kinds of plumbing are a decreasing
part of the music-making community every day. That's not my wish, it's just
the fact. Acoustic performers simply have not kept up with the demands,
either in pop or nonpop, and they're replaced.
On the other hand, when I am faced with a commission for an acoustic player
(such as the one I received today), I have to draw together all my
compositional resources to write it in a way the player will enjoy
(challenge or not), the audience will respond to, and which will have
meaning ab initio.
And fulfilling those demands becomes less and less a gratifying occupation.
That commission I received today from one of the world's leading players
had the following requirement: It can be "any style you like but try to
keep the extended techniques to a minimum; I have enough people sending me
beat and bang on the [instrument] pieces all the damn time."
Should I have wanted to write such a "beat and bang" piece, then, my option
would be to find another capable player, or to turn to my trusted musician
friend Midi. Mr. Midi would have required care and effort and coaxing, but
he would ultimately play the piece admirably and without complaint, with
whatever performance styles I requested of him. And without warning me away
ahead of time from a "beat and bang" piece.
(I should note that composer Nick Didkovsky has an interesting method of
working. He composes using Midi and various algorithms, produces the score,
and the renders it into playable form and gives it to his rock band. And
then there's the violin-playing Command Data of Star Trek, who could but
meld the performances of past performers without an original contribution.
And in the 23rd century, no less! What had they solved?)
>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.
That, I would suggest, is "old Midi" -- we now have "compassionate Midi". :)
As I was writing this, Doug Auwarter's post came in. He wrote, "Ever
noticed how, the more technologically 'up-to-date' we try to make a music
production, the more dated it sounds in five years?"
That's clearly revealed by Frank Zappa's remastering of his own works on
the Ryko CDs by means of multitracking and the Synclavier. They sound more
dated that the old LPs.
But this point is true of both performances and technological realizations;
we just have different vocabularies for it, one respectful and one
pejorative. A performance is called "classic", technology is called
"dated". The difference that I think he and you are getting at is that an
inflexible technology is bound to trap us. The point is *not* to retrograde
ourselves to the old methods, but to shake the failures out of the technology.
And for me, the point of being an artist, I think, is to avoid the
entrapment. Sometimes you can't. There ain't no castrati handy these days,
for example, nor a host of serpents. Likewise, Stockhausen's "Gesang der
Jünglinge" will always haunt us with the voice of a boy-child now 60 years
old if he's alive at all. And Horowitz, Toscanini, Furtwängler? All dead.
Fixed performances. Immutable, unchanged.
And somehow they're still listened to.
It does make me wonder.
Dennis
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
