On 5 Jul 2005 at 23:29, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: > At 09:43 PM 7/5/05 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote: > >Fewer and fewer people are actually creating music to be performed by > > live musicians. Good computer-based playback means you don't need > >human beings. While Dennis may think this is A Good Thing, I think > >it's very distressing -- perhaps the beginning of the end of live > >performance as anything other than a hobby/curiosity. > > That's been going on since the piano roll. > > But the current situation provides the opportunity for committed > musicians to rise above a mundane level of performance, technique and > repertoire.
I would have thought so, but the GPO demos were very disappointing to me. Not because of flaws in the samples, but because of the lack of attention to detail in what were supposedly fine examples of sequences. I heard all sorts of awful things, as well as an overreliance on reverb to cover a multitude of sins (not least of which being some real shortcomings in the samples themselves). Creating a good, human-sounding sequence is really, really hard work, no matter what tools you are using, because creating a really solid musical performance is very hard work even using actual musicians and actual musical instruments. Music is complicated that way -- the smallest details stick out, the tiniest discontinuities, the smallest not-quite-right rates of change for tempo or dynamics or any of a host of other performance issues. > . . . Really good new nonpop groups are doing a killer business > right now, but those few are really good. They have to be, as > accurate, effective performances are no longer a dream. Now you can > make 'em right off the score. > > It doesn't reduce opportunities for musicians. For me to be interested > in what they do, though, they have to make strong contributions to the > presentation of the music. Mere reproduction of notes is no longer > sufficient. It never really was, but the 'human playback' reveals > clearly how little musical ingeniousness has been part of nonpop > performance since the advent of recording. Well, Sturgeon's law applies here, don't you think? > New music and new technology do go hand in hand. Any computer can do a > great Mendelssohn now, . . . Really? I've yet to hear it. > . . . and you can even 'dial in' the level of > idiosyncrasy; we're now getting to the Data character from ST:TNG, > albeit four centuries early. On the other hand, great new pieces > demand inventiveness from the performers -- not just cadenza-copying, > but real involvement in the work from the beginning of composition to > the time it appears in the real air. Well, I had an eye opener the last week. I've always thought of my sound card's piano as having a really good sound, but when I mixed MIDI sequences in with MP3s of live performances in iTunes, and shuffled them, I started hearing that the piano was not so good after all. If all you're listening to is synthesized performances, your ear adjusts, just as it did for early hearers of recorded sound who could not distinguish a live singer from a 78rpm recording of a singer. You learn to hear the music through the imperfections of the performance medium. For me, live performance will always be preferable in terms of quality of sound. And with decent musicians, in every other way, as well. But I am in a minority in terms of ability to hear distinctions that the vast majority of listeners don't even know exist. > That's definitely enough from me. Off to bed. I read that as "Orff to bed!" :) -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
