To all, There has been enough from me on this topic, that's for sure! I've collapsed David's last three emails into one response. Then I'll leave the topic behind -- unless you're all just too enthralled!
Dennis At 01:40 PM 3/5/03 -0500, David W. Fenton wrote: >But do the new controllers allow changes of balance? That is, aren't >they still limited to the proportions of the relationships set up in >the original MIDI data, even if they can be modulated and controlled >by an individual at performance time? I don't know. These controllers are fairly new, and how they can massage data 'on the fly' is the job of the software. They are just a black box. I would imagine that feeding the velocity and pitch data to one or two of the controls is probably trivial. Setting up proportions or compressions or expansions or combined live manipulations of those wouldn't strike me as difficult. One of these isn't in my budget, though, so I can't try it for you. (Buy me one? Please?) >My basic objection is that a composer controlling a MIDI performance >with the latest controllers, and using the finest envelopes for the >instrumental sounds, is still only a single performer controlling >what might be distributed between multiple individuals. I accept the facts. But that's not just any ol' performer -- that's the *composer* at the controls. And to me, therein lies all the difference. >When multiple people collaborate, all sorts >of things can be *instantly* suggested, at performance time, just but >a slight change of shading, a touch of an accent, a slight lift, and >that can be picked up and run with by the other players. Matt Fields also says this. But when is the point of diminishing returns met? For the career players whose Beethoven is in-your-sleep material, then such shadings and interpretations are possible. But when a few hours are assigned to learn a new work without much stylistic precedent, even playing the notes is rarely a given. Who wants to fight this fight? Not me, not anymore. I already said the reason I created scores was for performance. I also pointed out that I wasn't among the lucky few composers to receive such collaborative attention very often. :( >you should be grateful that you're in the first generation of >composers who actually has a decent choice in the matter (Noncarrow >notwithstanding, of course). I am very grateful, which is why I prefer that attention be spent on refining electronic control rather than cost-ineffective performers. Even culture-conscious societies like Canada are collapsing their orchestras' performance of new nonpop. Wasn't it the Toronto Symphony which just a few weeks ago proudly declared itself hands-off on any new pieces for the forseeable future? I don't support that sort of behavior (and if I lived there, I'd be carrying a picket sign at every show, or buying a ticket just to bust up the performance & get arrested a few times). >But no single performance, except in the case of electronic music >(such as the Sthockhausen), is the whole piece of music. [...] >One can certainly prefer some performances over others, >but that doesn't mean that any one performance is the definitive one. In the US, the situation remains bad. There is little opportunity to make such choices. In fact, one of the national funding organizations is now providing money only for *second* performances and joint commissions because there has been *no* choice after the premiere of (and discarding of) new works. I'm dealing in ordinary real-world terms regarding the ordinary state of affairs and ordinary performers in ordinary economic circumstances. Would that the world were populated with new nonpop players akin to a Budapest String Quartets who could dedicate decades to perfecting the nuances of the Grosse Fuge. But we are not even gaspingly recovering from the last century's damage. (Again, another discussion of how we got here, but yes, here we are.) >And therein lies the distinction that I think is the danger for the >composer-controlled MIDI performance. It's too easy to become >insular, to lose your perspective, to become too attached to one way >of seeing your music so that you end up limiting the possibilities >inherent in what you've written. Insularity can also be considered focus and dedication. And insularity is not implicit in Midi/electronically assisted performance. The Mulchers just gave a night-long concert in (I think) Melbourne. They just didn't use squeezeboxes and plumbing. Scratchers and techno artists and trancers are all 'insular' in that regard, while they can create a wonderful expanse of sound beyond the ability of ordinary acoustic players. >How much more wonderful to give the pieces to gifted performers who >would have there own reactions and find their own nuggets of interest >in what I've created. The gifted performers are welcome to be part of the equation. For most composers, gifted or not (the composers, that is), they are absent and almost always will be. "What do you do now, Jack, what do you do?" At 02:05 PM 3/5/03 -0500, David W. Fenton wrote: >But you seemed to me to be discarding flawed performances in general, >such as the Horowitz return concert, which I saw live on TV and of >which I have the LP, and which I think is absolutely electrifying >music-making. You discarded this gloriously exciting and riveting >performance on the basis of the clinkers in Horowitz's playing. It was *made* of clinkers. Everybody had gathered to watch it; I think I was at Rutgers at the time. It was just such a mess. We felt so sorry for this poor old guy. And then they released the recording. I thought the editors would have at it, but it was the same awful mess. For me it was riveting like a road accident is riveting. >So, how do you notate dynamics? With key velocities? With decible >levels? Anything else is ambiguous and open to interpretation, so if >you're complaining that performers don't respect your intentions, >then maybe you're not being as explicit about your intentions as you >think. I don't understand the question. If something is specified, it's to be done as closely as possible within limits of and skill (and time and budget). It's not optional. And if it's not specified, then it's open to interpretation within the stylistic parameters of the piece, which I would expect a performer to study and learn. >Could a different person take your MIDI data and rework it in a way >that would produce an inappropriate performance, working only from >the printed score? Within the stylistic parameters of the piece, no. At 01:59 PM 3/5/03 -0500, David W. Fenton wrote: >It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, which is about what >our ideals should be. The questions and comments in the original post, presented as somewhat of a pre-drawn conclusion, didn't seem to be about ideals: >At 04:56 PM 3/4/03 +0100, Mr. Liudas Motekaitis wrote: >>Is anyone haunted >>by this? Is this beautiful? >>http://www.crystalmusic.com/taussig/download.html >>The Bach *may* benefit but the Rachmaninoff is a plastic robot without soul. >>Question is: is the success of this art form going to rely soley on the >>individual programmer's abilities or will this type of new advancement in >>interpretive nuance and performance of music eventually help, in the end, to >>separate the compositional chaff from the wheat? Or is it the lack of >>emotional and spiritual ensemble between one's individual fingers and hands >>that which kills the spirit of music? I thought this was deliberately loaded and provocative and full of a kind of 19th century romantic flush. So I couldn't agree with the basic premise of the question and redefined the argument from my point of view: that Midi can do as well and even exceed a performer's abilities. The entire chain of argument that performers simply *can't do* a lot of this -- fractals, morphing, algorithms -- hasn't even been touched. If you want to play Beethoven, go get a piano and a pianist. I guess. I don't listen to Beethoven any more. >I'm assuming >the absolute best synthesizers and controllers, since you wouldn't >possibly be happy with anything else. Why would you assume that >someone on the other side of the argument would be happy with ill- >prepared, mistake-ridden performances? Because they're almost all ill-prepared and mistake-ridden in the current economic climate. The few that aren't are rare and inaccessible to most composers. And less talk politics. Even if they appear to be wonderful performances from an audience/performer perspective, it's very important to realize that a composer will almost never criticize a performance. It's politically dangerous and career suicide. Even if a composer *despised* a performance by your ensemble of choice, Eighth Blackbird, the composer would (unless their career was incredibly secure or they were incredibly stupid) just shut up and smile. (In private, they'll come clean to other composers.) >It's pretty obvious that there are committed performers who can >brilliantly realize complex music. The question is: why aren't there >more of them? And the further question: what can be done to increase >their numbers? Diminishing returns, again. I have fewer years left to live than I've lived. Like Zappa, I guess, I'd rather leave behind something decent to listen to, even if it was "dated", as Doug described it, than a bunch of teeth-clenchers. >You seem to have bitterly decided to take them out of the equation, >despite the wonderful things performers can contribute. I'm not bitter at all. I'm really a very fun guy. And I am even practical. Most of my current work *is* performed. To put it in drier terms, the Midi demo is just more 'definitive'. Given time to work out, I feel such a recording is likely to be better than most musician-driven recordings. To me that's more important than some performer's navel-gazing spiritual quest (my biases are showing again). And, at some point, a live electronically-driven performance will also be able to exceed muscle, as constraints on channels, positions, etc., fall away. And with that, our tastes and ultimately the music itself will change. To refer to my first post, instruments as we know them are "taking their slow walk into the museum of sonic history." And from that vast museum we'll play the Bachs and Ockeghems and Mozarts and Hildegards and Beethovens -- probably better and better, with the competition from electronic devices. >Or have you simply despaired of there ever being such a world? Yes. >Given practical realities, if you want live performances, you should >compose in a fashion that mazimizes the chances that average or >better than average performers will get acceptably close to your >intentions. Correct. But ultimately, it is the wrong decision. >Music is about process, about unfolding over time. The social aspect >of it is for me the part that makes it fun and interesting, both for >the performers and for the audience. Composers could choose (and have >often chosen) to exploit this, to revel in the uncertainties, the >spontaneities. As do I. And I have a lot of music that encourages that. In fact, for years, in writing for amateurs, I have provided what could be done and had great fun doing it. I still do. (I've provided links in my past posts; have you looked at or listened to any of that music, or are you just shooting from the hip here?) But the heart of it is the richness of the art that the artist is capable of creating when at the outside edge of ability and imagination and inspiration. One can point to "Es is genug" and say "Aaah! Genius!" But JS's art doesn't stop at the chorale, and neither does mine. >And when I read you, I feel >there's that implied indictment behind everything you say. Of course there is. (In my role as interviewer, I know this feeling is shared by composers both unknown and successful.) But this discussion is (for me) about driving a Midi performance vs. driving a muscle performance. In ideal circumstances, both can be equally subtle. Circumstances are far from ideal, so: - On one side are those like me, who want accuracy first and don't care about the rest. - On the other side are those who equate muscle performance with some sort of spirituality. (As Frances McDormand's character Marge Gunderson said in Fargo, "I just think I'm gonna barf.") >But it only means that you've had shitty performers. I've had many wonderful performers of, um, something which occasionally resembled my music. Now and then it even *closely* resembled my music. >All of those miss the time constraints. And also, choirs that can >perform Bernstein and Stravinsky, while strictly speaking amateur, >don't really count to me in the definition of amateur. >I mean people who barely read music, but who have musical ability. I >mean the kind of people that sing in the choir in a church with 100 >people at weekly services. Um, half of my 8- to 12-member choir didn't read music. Some still don't. We sang for congregations of under 25. We rehearsed one hour a week. I'm just good at it, and have worked with amateurs as director and composer for so long that I *do* know what's possible in terms of inspiring performers to do well, and I write what's doable. (From a composer's perspective, most of those performances were terrible; but they were for the performers and the congregation, not the composers.) I listed all that because it met your criteria, it didn't violate them. >And it should also teach them how to write music that is going to be >performed *correctly* with little special preparation. You learn what >is hard for performers and then learn to shape the musical material >to avoid musically unnecessary difficulties. Beat 'em down until they cave in, you mean? Rip off their creative wings? Remove their aspirations to write at the edge? Deny them artistic marvelousness from the start? No, this is a fine little experiment, but not much more. (I happen to like it, but it does make me lazy.) >I'd be interested to know if you'd compose for viol consort, and what >you might compose. I have already. The entire middle movement of my Triple String Quartet (using only the second of the three quartets) is rescored for viols. I've never published it, though. I've arranged many pieces for viols; I think my arrangement of Dowland's "In Darkness" is on my site, but I'm not sure. It hasn't been played in years. Heck, I used to play bass viol and still own one (I no longer play, so if you want it, it's for sale at http://maltedmedia.com/people/bathory/gamba.html) And I've written for recorders; there's a book of pieces called "The Big Fipple" on my site that's probably among the most popular downloads. >But to me, it seems that the composers are the ones who broke the >covenant. Total nonsense, especially if you think Boulez was a problem composer. But that is for another time. I am gone for a while now (preparing to recording and engineer the premiere of Mary Lou Newmark's electric violin concerto). Dennis _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
