Debussy & MIDI (Was Offical..Map)
Joel Matthys
> communicate via the means invented over ten years ago. It has
> enormous limitations in itself, the main ones being absolute
> absence of acknowledgments, no across-brand standards whatsoever.
> and total disregard for alternative tuning systems. The only
> valuable idea incorporated in MIDI is the concept of a message
> as a medium for communication of musical events, but other than
> that it is a pretty awkward compromise between functionality and
> price. Another example where the musical industry established a
> standard that is far from the best.
>
OK, I know MIDI ain't perfect, but let's face it; it's the best we got!
What do you mean, no across-brand standards whatsoever? Never before in
the music industry has any kind of standard been set up like this. All
brands of keyboard communicate via the same kind of connection. Sure, there
are differences in how the different machines work with the data, but call
that the "personalities of the machines." I can see your point about a
disregard for alternative tuning systems, but I think MIDI was set up for
more mainstream applications than that. I don't know what the heck you're
talking about when you say "absense of acknowledgments." Inform me :-)
Anyways, it's basically useless to complain about the shortcomings of
MIDI; better to do what you can with it and try to overcome the limitations
in different ways.
> 2. I second the opinion that Ravel is more accessible than Debussi.
> Actually, Ravel's string quartet in F-major was my first love
> in classical music (prior to impressionists I only listened
> to Mozart, Vivaldi, and Bach, and really liked only Bach).
> Anyway, you are probably right that Debussi is more responsible
> for the development of impressionism than Ravel, but I enjoy
> Ravel's close attention to melody, which in Debussi's case is
> often substituted with a search for an extensive sound palette.
> (Okay, okay, Ravel did that too, but at least in lesser degree).
> Of course, my judgment is far from comprehensive, since
> I know only few Debussi's works.
>
First of all, I'm just the reverse, barely cohesive on Ravel but well
acquainted with Debussy (my mother's piano teacher was a friend of Claude
Debussy, and I've been raised with a deep appreciation and respect for him.)
You're right that Deb was more interested in the "sound palette," and that's
my personal preference, too.
Joe' Mama
ge...@vxdesy.desy.de
>> 1. MIDI is a dead end. It is an attempt to make modern instruments
>> communicate via the means invented over ten years ago. It has
>> enormous limitations in itself, the main ones being absolute
>> absence of acknowledgments, no across-brand standards whatsoever.
>> and total disregard for alternative tuning systems. The only
>> valuable idea incorporated in MIDI is the concept of a message
>> as a medium for communication of musical events, but other than
>> that it is a pretty awkward compromise between functionality and
>> price. Another example where the musical industry established a
>> standard that is far from the best.
>>
> OK, I know MIDI ain't perfect, but let's face it; it's the best we got!
> What do you mean, no across-brand standards whatsoever? Never before in
> the music industry has any kind of standard been set up like this. All
> brands of keyboard communicate via the same kind of connection. Sure, there
> are differences in how the different machines work with the data, but call
> that the "personalities of the machines." I can see your point about a
> disregard for alternative tuning systems, but I think MIDI was set up for
> more mainstream applications than that. I don't know what the heck you're
> talking about when you say "absense of acknowledgments." Inform me :-)
> Anyways, it's basically useless to complain about the shortcomings of
> MIDI; better to do what you can with it and try to overcome the limitations
> in different ways.
>
> Joe' Mama
I just want to make a technical comment:
MIDI _does_ support alternative tunings !
There is a tuning table dump (-request) standard, supporting a resolution
of semitone, 1/127 s.t., 1/127^2 s.t.; implemented as 'non-real-time SysEx'
messages. You may even tweak single notes or groups of such with real-time
SysEx messages.
Just to remember: There exists a legato message which allows to control
portamento flow by prescribing start keys.
Of course, MIDI is pretty much keyboard-oriented, but there are many
possibilities, e.g. the PitchBend message, which has a 14-bit resolution that
is able to cover the whole MIDI note range with 1/127 note steps.
It would be no problem to use that for continous pitch control like with
stringed instruments.
So my impression is: A lot of musicians and/or technicians are constantly
implementing useful ideas into the MIDI specification. It's up to the
instrument manufactures to fully explorate the possibilities already existing.
Alas, this is a marketing problem...
But some lone people (take Don Buchla for example) are developing exotic MIDI
applications all the way.
The often-cited technical problems may be overcome by structural means like
networking, better instrument concepts and so on.
Use your imagination and roam off..
Gereon Geitz