Chuck Israels wrote:
So what I want to suggest to users of this technology is something
like: Check your pitches and rhythms, with the understanding that
subtleties in each of those areas will be changed by live musicians
(in good and bad ways!), and try to get an idea of the overall
textural and timbral (is that a word?) structure - the similarities
and contrasts. Then imagine that most of them will be vastly
improved in any halfway decent live performance.
Hows that for a cautionary instruction?
Speaking as a composer, one of the best things about the computer
playing back my music is that I think it has improved my ability to
judge the formal elements of a piece.
Is this section too long or too short? Finale helps me evaluate that
better than reading a score in my head.
On the downside, I have noticed that my tempos tend to be faster in
my own studio than what they should be in the concert hall. I suspect
that is an acoustic thing -- the drier studio lends itself to faster
tempos AND the fact that MIDI mockups tend to sound better when you
emphasize the attacks of notes rather than the sustain.
Dynamics and balance are the biggest pitfall. The dynamic you put in
the score to make it sound right is often NOT the dynamic you need in
a real situation. This is a complex issue -- there is no one single
solution to the problem.
-Randolph Peters
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
