Using MIDI to learn composition
Matthew H. Fields
violin: take it out of the box, read the 10-page instruction manual, play it.
you're a violinist.
piano: take it out of the box, read the 10-page instruction manual, play it.
you're a pianist.
sampler: take it out of the box, read the 100-page instruction manual, play it.
you're a composer.
C compiler. take it out of the box, double-click on install, read the
readme file, launch the project manager. You're a computer scientist.
paint program: take it out of the box, double-click on install, read the
readme file, launch the program. You're an artist.
document processor: take it out of the box, double-click on install, read
the readme file, launch the program. You're a writer, poet, typesetter, and
publisher.
I encounter these attitudes a lot these days.
They're so prevalent that it's hard for a lot of people to imagine
that when somebody says they're a {composer, systems analyst, artist,...}
they really mean something other than one of these.
Really, writing for live players, there's no substitute for working with
live players. Doing so is not an elitist activity, it's a social activity.
Try it. You'll be surprised how many people are interested in playing your
music!
David Horne
[etc.]
: >>>A hack is someone who uses a
: >>>brand new tool in the exact way that thay used some older, completely
: >>>different tool. You've now become about the ten billionth person to
:
: I have to question which one of us is trying to do this. Besides, if
: *anything* works, why not do it? Is it wrong to use a piano to compose?
For the life of me, I cannot understand why you and others are taking this
so personally. The original point about 'hacks' was a perfectly valid one.
There are plenty of composers around who while employing elaborate
electronic devices, seem to have no grasp of basic musical concepts. It is
in part because of this that when you do happen upon someone who has both
an immense knowledge of and facility with electronics, while being
extremely musical, that the discovery is a happy one. The point which some
have made is simply this- that electronic devices are not as helpful to
'teaching' the beginner composer to write as are the more traditional
methods. Many have gone flying off the handle, presuming that this point
of view is intended to insult everyone who has ever used MIDI for
anything.
: How many composers can complete an entire orchestral score without
: going near a musical instrument? Stravinsky couldn't write three
When, in this debate, did someone suggest that this was the case?
: BARS without a piano. Is he exempt from the slave-to-a-machine
: criticism that's being leveled at *beginning* composers?
The Stravinsky example is an interesting one. You could make a plausible
argument that *everything* he ever wrote was musically 'centered' around a
physical pianistic impulse. Take any score of his, and you'll find that
the themes, chords etc. 'fit' under the fingers in a rather disconcerting
manner, given that the freshness of his ideas would seem to have indicated
that they would be independent of such things. The only exceptions that
come to mind are Ragtime and Renard, and the reason for this is
self-evident, he composed both pieces on a cymbalom. Comparing Stravinsky
to the MIDI-infused novice is patently ridiculous. Stravinsky's initial
musical training was of the highest order. Many have suggested, correctly
I believe, that the beginner would be far better advised to seek serious
instruction in ear-training, counterpoint as well some training in an
instrument. Though I would point towards keyboard, that's perhaps a
prejudice, and there are certainly a number of notable composers, living
and dead, who possess only the most rudimentary keyboard skills, if that.
:
: The arguments I've heard so far have limited validity, and even then
: only within the academic realm. I am sure that you and other prof's
: have no trouble getting students and various players to demo techniques
: and instr. ranges. I've heard this same argument over and over from
: academics. This has absolutely no relevance for someone who is not
: in your environment. In fact, if some profs at Juilliard can't get
: their works played, how is a *student* going to hear their own
: orchestral compositions?
How many beginners proceed to write their Opus 1 for large orchestra? Not
many, I'd imagine. The composer would be far better off writing initial
pieces for the minimum forces, and try whenever possible to have someone
render it to them. I don't believe this is as impossible as you seem to
suggest. You *don't* need to have Itzhak Perlman play your solo violin
sonata to get an idea of how it works. The picture you paint is, when you
consider it, not of the beginner frustrated at his attempts to get his
solo flute piece played by anyone, but of the composer frustrated at not
being able to get his orchestra piece played. You can't equate the two.
[etc.]
:
: So first, explain why MIDI is not ideal for complex counterpoint
: exercises (you'd rather they played all parts?), chord and pitch
: analysis, checking instrument ranges (yes it's easy to do), checking
: timbres (works much better than you imply), proofing scores for wrong
: notes, etc.
Learning counterpoint is not an academic exercise, akin to painting by
numbers. (I don't suggest that's what you implied, however.) Performing
the exercise is a far more useful method of hearing what doesn't work and
why than a mechanical playback. For example with 4-part chorales, one
useful method is to play 3 parts on the keyboard (electronic if you wish,
that's unimportant) and sing the other. Do this with all parts, preferably
in 4 different clefs. This will give you far better insight as to how the
separate voices musically interlock than simply banging each chord on the
piano, or having MIDI play it back to you. I'm not sure exactly when you
consider the counterpoint exercises to be too complicated to play back,
but given that even most BM graduates (in this country at least) can't
even write a fugue exposition, I'd hardly think that complexity of
material is going to be a problem for the beginner. If the performer can't
play (even slowly) a simple two-part invention or species counterpoint
exercise, then he/she should be made to learn how to do so. This is going
to be far more rewarding in the long run than simply relying on a
computerised playback. This is also where, respectfully, you miss the
point. Why do you assume that everything should be so easy? Perhaps, nay
indeed, it's beneficial for the beginner to have to 'work' at hearing the
musical exercise. I'm telling you, after struggling to play the chorale in
four clefs, with your hands inverted (!), you're going to appreciate it in
a far deeper way than just entering the notes on a programme and hitting
play.
As for checking 'timbres'- what do you mean? As for proof-reading a
score- I agree with you. As for checking ranges, well- learn them, or
look them up in a book.
: Then explain why MIDI-gen'd compositions are any different from someone
: in the old school 'hacking away' at a piano.
That's irrelevant. They're not the same thing. 'Hacking away' at a piano,
is not necessarily such a bad thing. 'Hackin away' and 'hack' have
different connotations anyway, so you're just mixing metaphors.
: Regarding academic-serious composition (which was not necessarily the
: intent of the original query), how many composers are complete hacks
: WITHOUT the use of MIDI? No shortage whatsoever.
So what? Anyway, I don't recommend learning to compose in a manner anything
other than seriously.
: Couldn't teaching serial composition methods 'make' a composer into
: a mindless hack? I've seen it happen. Please don't tell me you haven't.
Who claimed it didn't?
: I've heard the same mindset paralleled by musicians in other disciplines:
: "I know a little about music theory but not enough to hurt me". It could
: be true in some cases. Sorry thought.
Sounds like rationalisation to me.
[etc.]
: One thing that *will* happen over the next 20 years is that there
: will be increased sophistication of control mechanisms. It will
: be increasingly more difficult to tell the difference betw. a
: keyboard player playing an oboe patch and a real oboist. It
: sounds like a lot of the complaints I'm hearing relate to primitive,
: bad sounding synths, not to serious sampling gear with well done
: patches. Decent sounding 'static' samples are here already.
:
I don't know if that was the point. I'd make the argument that
'involvement' in the performance of music is more beneficial for the
composer. It would seem to me that the composer will miss something if
he/she doesn't 'feel' what it is like for the violinist to play high on
the G-string or a piccolo flute to double a bass clarinet (yes!)- maybe
technology will allow for the eventual rendition of such things, but at
the moment, I don't see a viable substitute for the real thing.
More importantly, I don't see a viable substitute for the compositional
'experience' gained by doing such things.
: Bottom line:
:
: FIRST the composer has to learn to be a composer. (It doesn't matter how)
: THEN they can sit under the tree and write.
But that would seem to be the point of the debate. For some of us, it
indeed *does* matter how.
David
Mark Garvin
>Really, writing for live players, there's no substitute for working with
>live players. Doing so is not an elitist activity, it's a social activity.
>Try it. You'll be surprised how many people are interested in playing your
>music!
That would be great, really. Yes, I would be surprised. Mostly because
I've sat thru orchestral readings from some of the top Juilliard composers
and watched a supposedly organized reading evaporate in front of my eyes.
The 'orchestra' was down to about 35 players by the last movement.
The composer had to splice little pieces of tape to get a reasonable
semblance of his composition. The conductor was verbally abused when
he had the audacity to ask some of the players to stay. They had
better things to do.
The composer is a teacher at Juilliard. I suppose that beginning
composers will fare any better?
I wrote a piece for string orchestra which was organized by the
school. All 23 players signed up and agreed to play. Guess who
showed:
Two 1st violins
Two 2nd violins
Two violas
One cello
One bass
This is typical from what I've seen.
Needless to say, the MIDI version sounded much better.
Mark Garvin
Mark Garvin
In rec.music.compose you write:
>>>Why do I get the feeling that this view of (MIDI, programming tools,
>>>language, etc) is widespread and correlates to the large number of
>>>hacks in every field?
....
>>>A hack is someone who uses a
>>>brand new tool in the exact way that thay used some older, completely
>>>different tool. You've now become about the ten billionth person to
I have to question which one of us is trying to do this. Besides, if
*anything* works, why not do it? Is it wrong to use a piano to compose?
going near a musical instrument? Stravinsky couldn't write three
criticism that's being leveled at *beginning* composers?
only within the academic realm. I am sure that you and other prof's
have no trouble getting students and various players to demo techniques
and instr. ranges. I've heard this same argument over and over from
academics. This has absolutely no relevance for someone who is not
in your environment. In fact, if some profs at Juilliard can't get
their works played, how is a *student* going to hear their own
orchestral compositions?
acoustical instruments rather than laying out heavy cash for MIDI gear.
What is total cost of: a flute, a piccolo, an oboe, an english horn,
a clarinet or two, a bassoon, a horn, trumpet, tbn, lots of percussion
toys (hmmm what do typani really sound like, anyway...I should buy
a couple o' those, too), violins, violas, etc...
So first, explain why MIDI is not ideal for complex counterpoint
exercises (you'd rather they played all parts?), chord and pitch
analysis, checking instrument ranges (yes it's easy to do), checking
timbres (works much better than you imply), proofing scores for wrong
notes, etc.
in the old school 'hacking away' at a piano.
Regarding academic-serious composition (which was not necessarily the
intent of the original query), how many composers are complete hacks
WITHOUT the use of MIDI? No shortage whatsoever.
a mindless hack? I've seen it happen. Please don't tell me you haven't.
"I know a little about music theory but not enough to hurt me". It could
be true in some cases. Sorry thought.
evil computer or the evil Schoenberg) will prevent it. Others are
destined to simply have fun.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>BTW, MIDI and the synthisizer as we know it will be obsolete in 20
>years. Electroacoustic music will all be produced in software, IMHO.
>If any vestage of MIDI remains, it will be stricly as a communication
>protocal between controllers and computers.
Predictions tend to come and go. I'm on the distributed processing
bandwagon. That's been the trend so far. Why would you say that it
will all be done in software? And MIDI is and always was just a
'communication protocol'.
One thing that *will* happen over the next 20 years is that there
will be increased sophistication of control mechanisms. It will
be increasingly more difficult to tell the difference betw. a
keyboard player playing an oboe patch and a real oboist. It
sounds like a lot of the complaints I'm hearing relate to primitive,
bad sounding synths, not to serious sampling gear with well done
patches. Decent sounding 'static' samples are here already.
Bottom line:
FIRST the composer has to learn to be a composer. (It doesn't matter how)
THEN they can sit under the tree and write.
wish it.
Regards,
Mark Garvin
Matthew H. Fields
David Horne <ho...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>Mark Garvin (mga...@panix.com) wrote:
>[etc.]
>: >>>A hack is someone who uses a
>: a mindless hack? I've seen it happen. Please don't tell me you haven't.
>
>Who claimed it didn't?
I'll make the claim. Teaching anything doesn't make a composer into
a hack. If you're a composer and you're a hack, it has nothing to
do with anything you've taught.
If you're a composer and you're a hack, it has nothing to do with
skills you fancy you've learned, whether they're fluency in midi,
fluency in major and minor keys, or fluency in 16-bit DSP.
Hackhood has its roots in self-indulgence, lazyness, lack of self-
criticism.
For the FAQ (Craig, you getting this?), two models of musicianship
have been proposed here:
1) Skills unlock rare talent;
2) Skills unlock universal talent, and what's rare is the drive to
acquire skills.
I personally believe #2, but have no beef with folks who prefer #1.
Folks who say "I make beauty because I can afford the machine for it"
might as well take up the CD player---it's the perfect instrument for them.
Matthew H. Fields
1) a school where composition is regarded more highly by the other departments
and performance of new works is mandatory;
2) to build up a reputation among performers who've played your chamber works
(whether they're affiliated with a school or not).
I don't buy the argument that says "I got burned at Julliard, so I think
MIDI teaches me more about how to write for live performers than (willing,
attentive) live performers do". Nor do I buy the argument that says
"my piece sounded better on MIDI than live performers, therefore MIDI
teaches me more about writing for live performers than live performers do."
I don't know anything about your piece, but the same facts are true of
numerous pieces that I've heard that are much more suitable for MIDI than
for live performers. MIDI teaches you more about writing for MIDI than
anything else.
Craig Weston
>I have to question which one of us is trying to do this. Besides, if
>*anything* works, why not do it? Is it wrong to use a piano to
>compose? How many composers can complete an entire orchestral score
>without going near a musical instrument? Stravinsky couldn't write
>three BARS without a piano. Is he exempt from the slave-to-a-machine
>criticism that's being leveled at *beginning* composers?
Who ever said "no one should ever use an instrument?" The thing about
using a piano to "check notes" is that there is no pretense that the
piano can imitate an oboe, a trumpet, etc. It can give you the pitches
and rhythms (to the extent that one can play them). It's when you start
to think that playing an oboe patch on a keyboard-controlled synth will
be just like hearing it on an oboe that you get into trouble.
>The arguments I've heard so far have limited validity, and even then
>only within the academic realm. I am sure that you and other prof's
>have no trouble getting students and various players to demo techniques
>and instr. ranges. I've heard this same argument over and over from
>academics. This has absolutely no relevance for someone who is not
>in your environment.
Actually, the vast mjority of what I know about techniques and ranges
come from listening, score study, and books. It seems to me that anyone
who is serious about composing would already be taking advantage of
these resources.
>In fact, if some profs at Juilliard can't get
>their works played, how is a *student* going to hear their own
>orchestral compositions?
Is this really true, or "urban legend?" I'd sure as hell hate to teach
at Juilliard if it is.
As to your second point: generally a composer doesn't undertake to write
for an orchestra until s/he has some experience writing for orchestral
instruments in smaller groups. (Just like one wouldn't run a marathon
without working up to it.) I know this will sound terribly harsh, but
there is such a thing as quality: if a composer can't get anyone to
perform or at least read her/his music for smaller groups, maybe s/he
needs to re-evaluate whether it is primarily because of the perjudices
of performers (which surely do exist), or whether the music is lacking
in some way, rather than go ahead and write for a 100-piece orchestra
and assume it's her/his God-given right to have that piece performed.
Now, if for whatever reason, a composer determines that it is impossible
(or unacceptably difficult) to get humans to play her (getting tired of
that her/his stuff) music, than she might decide to write exclusively
electro-acoustic music. Fine and dandy. But she needs to realize
that's she's not writing for oboes and trumpets any more--shes writing
for a synth, or a computer DSP program, or whatever. She can still
write music that is great, shitty, or anywhere in between, but the
techniques that produce great (shitty) orchestra music will definitely
*not* translate directly into producing great (shitty) electro-acoustic
music.
>One composer stated that the beginner should just invest in some
>acoustical instruments rather than laying out heavy cash for MIDI gear.
>What is total cost of: a flute, a piccolo, an oboe, an english horn,
>a clarinet or two, a bassoon, a horn, trumpet, tbn, lots of percussion
>toys (hmmm what do typani really sound like, anyway...I should buy
>a couple o' those, too), violins, violas, etc...
Well, that wasn't my suggestion. *If* money is no object, and *if* the
goal is to write for acoustic instuments, then obviously the acoustic
instruments will be more helpful.
>So first, explain why MIDI is not ideal for complex counterpoint
>exercises (you'd rather they played all parts?), chord and pitch
>analysis, checking instrument ranges (yes it's easy to do), checking
>timbres (works much better than you imply), proofing scores for wrong
>notes, etc.
Of course it would be better to play all the parts--better yet, sing
them! Does MIDI do chord and pitch analysis? Checking instrument
ranges?! Synth patches generally have much wider ranges than the
acoustic instruments they model, and also do not mutate timbrally as a
function of tessatura the way that acoustic instruments do.
Checking timbres--yes, it's reasonable *in isolation,* but of very
limited use for checking, say, what a muted viola section and clarinet
sound like in unison, as opposed to and un-muted viola section and a
flute in unison, etc etc etc.
Proofing scores for wrong notes is indeed a useful function of MIDI
playback, but *only* if you already have the ear skills necessary to
*hear* that the notes are wrong.
>Then explain why MIDI-gen'd compositions are any different from someone
>in the old school 'hacking away' at a piano.
(snip)
Couldn't teaching serial composition methods 'make' a composer into
a mindless hack? I've seen it happen. Please don't tell me you
haven't.
Now this is an interesting question. I don't think that any knowledge
can make a person a worse composer. Knowledge can't hurt you. However,
what you do with it can. Most bad serial music, IMHO, arises from the
fallacy that one can spend a week or two learning serial techniques,
then write good music with those techniques. Why do people buy into
this, when no one would buy this if the "technique" in question were
functional tonality? Actually, I think that your statement bolsters my
position well--serialism can be a useful technology, but don't be fooled
into thinking you can "pick it up right out of the box" and make great
music with it. Serialism is a particularly seductive technology, in
that it is fairly easy to write "structurally well-formed utterances"
(as a linguist would say) within that system. What's hard, of course,
is to write musically interesting structurally well-formed utterances!
Likewise, a room full of MIDI gear makes it easy to produce vaguely
oboe-like sounds, but ...
>I've heard the same mindset paralleled by musicians in other
>disciplines: "I know a little about music theory but not enough to hurt
>me". It could be true in some cases. Sorry thought.
Well, unfortunately, information poorly presented can be a stumbling
block, as we have all witnessed. And music theory is an area where a
lot of people are, alas, exposed to poor presentation. But no amount of
theoretical knowledge can hurt anybody. It's all in what you choose to
do with it.
>If you have a need to make a musical statement, nothing (including the
>evil computer or the evil Schoenberg) will prevent it. Others are
>destined to simply have fun.
No argument there. (Again, let me stress that *no one* is saying the
computer is evil, or not capable of being a powerful creative resource.)
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>BTW, MIDI and the synthisizer as we know it will be obsolete in 20
>>years. Electroacoustic music will all be produced in software, IMHO.
>>If any vestage of MIDI remains, it will be stricly as a communication
>>protocal between controllers and computers.
>Predictions tend to come and go. I'm on the distributed processing
>bandwagon. That's been the trend so far. Why would you say that it
>will all be done in software? And MIDI is and always was just a
>'communication protocol'.
Yes, I wasn't very clear. MIDI is, of course, a communications
protocal. But it's predominate function in today's music technology
marketplace is as a musical data representation standard, acting (in
that capacity) as the centerpiece of notation programs, sequencers, etc.
In that capacity, MIDI is roughly as comprehensive a standard as ASCII
is for the written word--i.e. very limiting. What I meant is that the
only vestage of MIDI will be in the actual hardware communications
protocal. And even that will be greatly altered--surely we won't be
living with the limitations of 32Kbaud transmission of data for long.
The primary advantage of dedicated hardware synthesis has been
speed--synths can do in real time what computers generally have not been
able to do. This is changing. A RISC-based personal computer can now
run CSound or a MusicN-type program in realtime up to a level of
complexity which matches most low- to mid-range synths. What has
happened to the market for dedicated word processors? It has
pretty-much died, because general-purpose computers have developed the
capability to meet and greatly exceed the word-processing capabilities
of dedicated machines. This is also starting to happen in music
synthesis.
>One thing that *will* happen over the next 20 years is that there
>will be increased sophistication of control mechanisms.
Defintely.
>It will be increasingly more difficult to tell the difference betw. a
>keyboard player playing an oboe patch and a real oboist.
There's still a ways to go on that one. And that's not even getting
into what an aesthetically uninteresting way to use those technological
resource that is.
>It
>sounds like a lot of the complaints I'm hearing relate to primitive,
>bad sounding synths, not to serious sampling gear with well done
>patches. Decent sounding 'static' samples are here already.
True. But writing for a decent sounding oboe patch is still
sustantially different than writing for a human oboe performer. Being
good at one will not make one automatically good at the other, which is
what has been pruposed in this thread, and what I hjave been refuting.
>FIRST the composer has to learn to be a composer. (It doesn't matter
>how) THEN they can sit under the tree and write.
No, it doesn't matter how, but some ways are more likely to work than
others. That is the crux of this thread. If one wants to be an
orchestral composer, than "checking notes" with MIDI gear will be of
about the same value as checking notes with a piano, a jaw harp, or
whatever, and is still only a small part of the compostional process.
And to the extent that it (the MIDI gear) gives the composer the idea
that it reduces the need for good-old ear skills, it is directly
destructive to the learning process.
__________________________________________________________________
|Craig Weston--Assistant Professor of Music Theory, Composition, |
| & Electronic/Computer Music, Iowa State University|
| |
|e-mail: cwe...@iastate.edu |
|WWW: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~cweston/homepage.html |
|________________________________________________________________|
Matthew H. Fields
Matthew H. Fields <fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
[...snip...]
>For the FAQ (Craig, you getting this?), two models of musicianship
Where's our FAQ?
Matthew H. Fields
get along well with an orchestra is attending orchestra rehearsals. If you
can place into the orchestra, even better. If not, sneak in silently, and
if possible, bring along a copy of the score.
I'm always intrigued by:
1) What various composers have found that works well (Rimsky, Berlioz, and
Debussy are especially fun composers for this);
2) What does and doesn't need rehearsal.
It was watching an orchestra rehearsal that I noticed that when a
score had uniform crescendos to ff in all parts, the conductor had to
stop the rehearsal, instruct the winds to crescendo to near full power
early, the strings just after that, then the brass, and finally for
the percussion to wait until the last moment to push the sound up over
the threshold of orchestral ff. This sounds fabulous---has something
to do with growth of upper partials with loudness. So next time I wanted
full-ensemble crescendo, I wrote it out this way. The players knew
exactly what to do and made a marvelous sound; no rehearsal time was
spent straightening it out.
Among the tricks of writing for live players is the fact that they're people.
So you can get away with very sketchy notations (e.g. a crescendo wedge---
well placed) _when_ it connects nicely with their conventions (whereas
on a MIDI device, I'd be tempted to compose an exponential curve, then
adjust parameters for each instrument). Performers bring intelligence
and sophistication to their performance that the electronic instrument
doesn't have---which is a plus if you can work _with them, and becomes a
drag if you find yourself working against them. Sequencers, for their
part, bring precision and an utter lack of prejudices...meaning that they
put all the responsibility for musicality on you, the composer/performer
(/instrument builder/architect/audio engineer/whatever other role you
take on in your electronic composition).
Chester Jankowski
possibility of learning instrumental timbre from synths, and in the past
there have been many questions about learning orchestration from synths.
Well, an example springs to mind of just how crucially inaccurate
instrumental synth sounds are, even with one of the more successfully
mimicked instruments: a piano.
I tried an experiment one week with my aural skills class. Instead of
playing their four-part dictation at the piano, I made a tape using a
synth with a fairly convincing piano sound. As I checked the tape over the
night before, listening with sleepy, inattentive ears, everything sounded
fine. But during the class when everyone was listening very intently,
trying to get all the voices, we all found it totally confusing. And it
sounded like there were wrong notes in the soprano. It turns out the synth
has a greatly exaggerated 3rd harmonic; the harmonics from the bass were
providing the clashing notes in the soprano.
One could never learn to write good piano music using this synth--can you
imagine learning to write for an oboe or a violin using it?
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Chester Jankowski jank...@blues.epas.utoronto.ca
Music Graduate Students' Association University of Toronto
An idea whose time has come: Karaoke Busking
David Horne
[etc.]
: It was watching an orchestra rehearsal that I noticed that when a
: score had uniform crescendos to ff in all parts, the conductor had to
: stop the rehearsal, instruct the winds to crescendo to near full power
: early, the strings just after that, then the brass, and finally for
: the percussion to wait until the last moment to push the sound up over
: the threshold of orchestral ff. This sounds fabulous---has something
: to do with growth of upper partials with loudness. So next time I wanted
: full-ensemble crescendo, I wrote it out this way. The players knew
: exactly what to do and made a marvelous sound; no rehearsal time was
: spent straightening it out.
One aspect of notating dynamics that has always interested me is something
I call 'preventive dynamics.' For example, I'm sure you've noticed that if
you have, say, a whole note, crescendoing from pp to ff back to pp, you'll
rarely ever hear it played as such. Normally the effect is mf crescendoing
to ff and *staying* there. I get better results by doing the following: I
write two tied half notes. On the first I write p, crescendoing to f on
the next half note, then dim. to pp (or ppp) at the end. This tends to
achieve the original intention better. Actually, I think that on the
whole, you get better results when you rhythmicise, whenever possible, the
dynamics. As composers, we have the perennial problem of convincing the
performer that, yes, we really *do* mean what we write. I think that
providing your requests are reasonable, and stem from a real musical
impulse, you won't tend to encounter too many complaints from the
performers from putting too many dynamics in the score. I have heard
performers complain when there weren't, in their opinion, enough!
David
Matthew H. Fields
David Horne <ho...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
[...]
>to ff and *staying* there. I get better results by doing the following: I
>write two tied half notes. On the first I write p, crescendoing to f on
>the next half note, then dim. to pp (or ppp) at the end. This tends to
>achieve the original intention better.
Makes it much clearer _when_ the peak should be achieved.
Reminds me of the Ruth Crawford adagio from the String Quartet 1931,
in which timed swells are the main rhythmic event----kinda anticipates
similar sounds that today's listener would probably associate with Brian
Eno's electronic music.
Matthew H. Fields
Mark Garvin <mga...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <3pcpu1$1...@zip.eecs.umich.edu> fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H. Fields) writes:
>
>>Sounds like you need:
>>2) to build up a reputation among performers who've played your .. works
>
>>I don't buy the argument that says "I got burned at Julliard, so I think
>>MIDI teaches me more about how to write for live performers than (willing,
>>attentive) live performers do". Nor do I buy the argument that says
>
>
>sure I've got it straight:
>Step 1. You establish your reputation as a composer w groups who have
> *already* played your works.
>Step 2. You *then* get your works performed so that you can...
>Step 3. Learn how to compose...
Yes, Mark, this is typical of your logic so far on this thread.
Mark, it was you who wrote:
From: mga...@panix.com (Mark Garvin) | \-(2)--[2]
[1] Re: Using MIDI to learn composition |-(1)--(1)--(1)
Date: Tue May 16 22:25:45 EDT 1995 \-(1)--(1)--(1)--(1)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and
+ Unix, NYC
Lines: 36
That would be great, really. Yes, I would be surprised. Mostly because
I've sat thru orchestral readings from some of the top Juilliard composers
^^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
and watched a supposedly organized reading evaporate in front of my eyes.
>
>I wonder why I hadn't thought of doing this before.
Because it took until now for you to realize that some of the top Juilliard
composers are beginners? Your 3-point "logic" pulls this side thread (which
you started) together with the main thread on beginners.
>In case you missed the point again:
> It is near impossible for beginning composers to get their works performed.
> MIDI is the best alternative.
In case you missed the point again:
Beginning composers should not expect to write for orchestra
overnight, and if they try, they should expect disaster. An absolute
beginner needs to form alliances with performers--ONE AT A TIME---and
work WITH THEM, getting experience and feedback from them. MIDI is
GREAT for learning to score MIDI, but WILL BURN you really badly if
you try to substitute it for practical experience with performers,
when you're a beginner.
Mark, you're not a beginner, else you wouldn't have had a string orchestra
reading at Juilliard.
At this point, it's sounding more and more like you're really just trying to
create a flamewar for the fun of it. I surely hope not.
Matthew H. Fields
Mark Garvin <mga...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <jankowsk-170...@ppp00.epas.utoronto.ca> jank...@blues.epas.utoronto.ca (Chester Jankowski) writes:
>
>>In one of the earlier MIDI threads, someone again mentioned the
>>possibility of learning instrumental timbre from synths, and in the past
>>Well, an example springs to mind of just how crucially inaccurate
>>instrumental synth sounds are, even with one of the more successfully
>>mimicked instruments: a piano.
>Worse yet, could you imagine using a *piano* to write oboe or violin
>music! They sound nothing like a piano, either.
Exactly. And worse still, oboes and violins are mute unless attached
to an oboist or violinist. There's no substitute for learning to deal
with these non-trivial appendages!
>I agree that you should never assume that the sound is exact.
>The intent is to get as close as possible given limits of current
>tools. But some imagination is still required.
Exactly. AND some experience is still required.
That's why I keep advocating fly-on-the-wall rehearsal attendance,
interaction with players, etc.
>Expression and nuance aside, I've heard good piano samples that
>have better tone a bad CD recording.
Indeed.
Cynthia259
(musically, emotionally, and logically) to ignore a technology that
permits them to hear their compositions, both in development and in
performance. MIDI is part of the evolution of music. What emerges, of
course, is dependent on the individual. But why does this disturb so
many people?
Cynthia Sternau
David Rolsky
> It is near impossible for beginning composers to get their works performed.
> MIDI is the best alternative.
It is? I didn't know that. Maybe if you're not going to school it might
be difficult but I have not had any problems at all having my works
performed. Don't these beginners have any friends who play an instrument
or anything? And if you're not a total beginner you can take that money
you'd blow on your MIDI equipment and go to Aspen for the summer where
you can definitely get anything you want played as well as see tons of
music, etc.
Matthew H. Fields
composers because
A) they have a vested interest in seeing that new compositions are playable
and make THEM sound good, and
B) they need a distinct repertoire to help set themselves apart from all the
other players who play their standard repertoire.
Matthew H. Fields
Cynthia259 <cynth...@aol.com> wrote:
>Mark Garvin, I'm with you! No one creating music today can afford
>(musically, emotionally, and logically) to ignore a technology that
>permits them to hear their compositions, both in development and in
I'm with you on that, but I've helped several student composers who
were terribly bitter at performers when the performers (all willing
virtuosi) couldn't reproduce what the composer had assembled on the
synth.
>performance. MIDI is part of the evolution of music. What emerges, of
>course, is dependent on the individual. But why does this disturb so
>many people?
What I find disturbing is not the technology, which is wonderful, but
the insistance that this technology replaces performers, which it doesn't,
and the deliberate twisting of my words and suggestion that I'm anti-tech,
which I'm not.
>Cynthia Sternau
Matt Fields
Matthew H. Fields
Mark Garvin <mga...@panix.com> wrote:
>a composer writes his quota of quartets, etc. then what? Who can
>afford to hire an orchestra?
Wrong direction. Get the orchestra to hire you!
You provide a service for them---that helps them to sound good!
Mark Garvin
>>In case you missed the point again:
>> It is near impossible for beginning composers to get their works performed.
>> MIDI is the best alternative.
>It is? I didn't know that. Maybe if you're not going to school it might
>be difficult but I have not had any problems at all having my works
>performed. Don't these beginners have any friends who play an instrument
It is relatively easy to get, say, a quartet to play something. But not
for a beginner. And in NY they expect serious money. The problem
gets exponentially worse as the number of players increases. After
a composer writes his quota of quartets, etc. then what? Who can
afford to hire an orchestra?
To focus of the original question: I believe the person posting
was trying to find out about classical and orchestral composition.
He had apparently written some music in other forms and was trying
to get a leg up by using MIDI. Well, I guess he came to the wrong
place <g>...
Maybe I was hoping for too much here. I understand the apprehension
about technology among the old school, but we're all logged in via
computer.
Mark Garvin
Matthew H. Fields
>about technology among the old school,
No, you just made it up! Look carefully: Matt Fields, MA from Stanford,
BA in CS from Oberlin;
Craig Weston, professor of...electronic music... etc.
The apprehension is that folks will come to rehearsals with stuff that
sounds great on synth but is unplayable, then mistakenly think the
performers aren't being fair to them or aren't good enough. And I've
seen this happen. Especially to beginners. And the apprehension is that
by failing to clarify the limits of the roles of the technology, we're
creating this situation when we advocate the technology.
This is the 4th time you've invented this "apprehension about technology
among the old school", even after we've carefully corrected you.
Are you sure you're not trolling?
> but we're all logged in via
>computer.
Right on. Computer networking is a great way to connect with performers!
Mark Garvin
Subject: Re: Using MIDI to learn composition
References: <3p9jta$5...@panix.com> <3pd0a0$f...@news.iastate.edu>
In <3pd0a0$f...@news.iastate.edu> Craig Weston <cwe...@iastate.edu> writes:
>Mark Garvin (mga...@panix.com) wrote:
>using a piano to "check notes" is that there is no pretense that the
>piano can imitate an oboe, a trumpet, etc. It can give you the
pitches >and rhythms (to the extent that one can play them). It's
when you start >to think that playing an oboe patch on a keyboard-
controlled synth will >be just like hearing it on an oboe that you
get into trouble.
does not have the opportunity to use real musicians. *And* you have
picked the wrong instrument <g>... Oboe is very easy to mimic. To
make things fair, consider comparing a recording to a recording (tape
to sampler). Could you always tell the difference between a sample
and a recording? I've fooled several people, incl musicians, on
short stretches of sampled music with certain instruments. Most
brass are harder to do, as are solo strings. But this is still
current state of the art, which changes every day.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>Actually, the vast mjority of what I know about techniques and ranges
>come from listening, score study, and books. It seems to me that anyone
available. One of the most popular orchestration texts (is it Adler?)
includes a CD of 'samples' (pardon the expression) of instruments--
to let the student know how the instrument sounds.
Well, 16 bits is 16 bits. Does not matter whether it is from a CD
or a sampling machine. One very expensive sample collection comes
as non-looped 20 second tones. The instruments were sampled in-
place where they would normally sit in an orchestra in order to
get positioning and room reflections correct. Recorded with high
quality gear, similar to the way an orchestral recording is done.
------------------------------------------------------------------
>>In fact, if some profs at Juilliard can't get
>>their works played, how is a *student* going to hear their own
>>orchestral compositions?
>Is this really true, or "urban legend?" I'd sure as hell hate to teach
>at Juilliard if it is.
since I've heard the same about many other schools. I believe
some NYC schools may be a bit better in this respect. But again, the
problem is how to get started. I don't think the original question
was from someone in a music school.
The irony is that those who get their pieces performed are usually
the ones who have less need to hear them. They already know how
they will sound.
In any event, if you can get your compositions performed regularly,
especially orchestral pieces, believe me, you are a very lucky man.
----------------------------------------------------------
>As to your second point: generally a composer doesn't undertake to write
>for an orchestra until s/he has some experience writing for orchestral
>instruments in smaller groups. (Just like one wouldn't run a marathon
reading) is teaching at Juilliard now. Anyone can argue whether
he is a good composer, but I personally liked his symphony a lot
before it turned into a quartet. In terms of study, he definitely
'paid his dues'.
----------------------------------------------------------
>>So first, explain why MIDI is not ideal for complex counterpoint
>>exercises (you'd rather they played all parts?), chord and pitch
>
until you can play all four complex parts and then you sing the top
one"...(paraphrased)
First, some of us are not keyboard players, so that's a narrow view.
Second, I find that if I'm struggling to do this, there is no chance
to relax and listen to what's going on. It puts me out of touch, as
opposed to a keyboard player who may feel that he gets closer to it.
> Does MIDI do chord and pitch analysis? Checking instrument
>ranges?!
analysis just to find out about underlying motion in pieces I like.
It's always nice to be able to do the tedious stuff, but let's not
confuse that with music. I'd much rather speed the process up and
figure out what's happening thru larger stretches of music, rather
than waste hours going thru a few bars by hand.
(the previous is a cue for the 'grumpy old man' to jump in and say
"that's how it was in the old days and we *liked it*!")
>Synth patches generally have much wider ranges than the
>acoustic instruments they model,
machine like a Proteus 2. It's sometimes not done with 'factory'
patches cause high end limits differ from one player to another.
The Proteus 2 out of the box cannot do the Rite of Spring intro,
incidentally. They must have looked at too many orchestration
books and learned that a bassoon can't play up there.
(I worked with Emu regarding instr ranges on the P2, but I
think I warned them about top ranges). Anyway, you can set
them wherever you want.
> and also do not mutate timbrally as a [real instrument]
Again, it depends on the samples. The previously mentioned samples
play for 20 seconds with no loops. It *is* a recording of a
real instrument. Sounds just like a CD. You could argue that the
recording does not sound *exactly* like the live instrument.
But...neither does a CD, and we both use CD recordings to study
orchestration.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, here's some ammnunition for your next rebuttal:
The real shortcomings of samplers relate not so much to timbre as
to expression. Humans are great at interpreting context. Always
will be. It will be many long years before a machine learns about
musical context and feeling. Of course, some conductors probably
wish for a little less personal interpretation.
One of the real shortcomings of MIDI is the lack of slurs. Every
note is attacked equally. This is one of the main contributors to
the 'mechanical' sound. MIDI has only one type of 'NOTE ON' event.
Bad mistake. But easy to see in retrospect.
These two items are hard limits of current technology.
Problems of limited speed and limited number of channels (16
separate instruments) has already been solved. Just add more ports.
------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Couldn't teaching serial composition methods 'make' a composer into
>>a mindless hack? I've seen it happen. Please don't tell me you
>
>can make a person a worse composer. Knowledge can't hurt you. However,
>what you do with it can. Most bad serial music, IMHO, arises from the
mation of an oboe, but learn from it what you can.
Keep in mind that a lot of the 'approximations' are in fact very good.
My point about serial techiques is that young composers are convinced
that this is a legitimate way to make music, when in fact they are
math exercises. I would regard this as a greater danger to a
young composer, simply because it is a true 'mechanization' of
a composer's approach. This is as opposed to MIDI, which is just a
way for a composer to sound out his own ideas.
Serial approaches are usually endorsed (sometimes more like enforced)
by most schools, as you know. No thought given to the fact that much
of the resulting music is just horrible. But I still say, it's up
to the composer to know better.
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>In that capacity, MIDI is roughly as comprehensive a standard as ASCII
>is for the written word--i.e. very limiting. What I meant is that the
>only vestage of MIDI will be in the actual hardware communications
>protocal. And even that will be greatly altered--surely we won't be
>living with the limitations of 32Kbaud transmission of data for long.
the presses'. We all thought the 31.25kbaud standard would be
shortlived. The problem is inertia. How many instruments work
at 31.25k already? How many gas-powered cars are out there?
I would have loved to see a better spec, but the fact that MIDI
was adopted is in itself a minor miracle. No one knew what the
actual implications were at that time.
As I mentioned, tho, the baud rate was never my worry. The spec
itself has omissions which are hard to patch. The baud rate has
been roughly in gear with the max speed at which most synths can
produce the notes. Not a widely publicized fact. Most synths
just cannot spit out notes very fast. MIDI events take about
320 microseconds apiece. Three events to turn on a note. That's
about 1000 notes turned on per second. Pretty good considering
that each synth can play back only 16 instruments.
--------------------------------------------------------
Well, I'm sure some will be glad to hear, I'm going to taper off
on this thread. I've said pretty much what I had to say.
I was not hoping for any 'converts' as much as maybe a shift in
viewpoint. After all, music should be enjoyable. I don't see
any reason to enforce hard rules considering most of my favorite
musicians and composers broke them.
Mark Garvin
Mark Garvin
>In one of the earlier MIDI threads, someone again mentioned the
>possibility of learning instrumental timbre from synths, and in the past
>..
>Well, an example springs to mind of just how crucially inaccurate
>instrumental synth sounds are, even with one of the more successfully
>mimicked instruments: a piano.
>It turns out the synth
>has a greatly exaggerated 3rd harmonic; the harmonics from the bass were
>providing the clashing notes in the soprano.
>One could never learn to write good piano music using this synth--can you
>imagine learning to write for an oboe or a violin using it?
Worse yet, could you imagine using a *piano* to write oboe or violin
music! They sound nothing like a piano, either.
I agree that you should never assume that the sound is exact.
The intent is to get as close as possible given limits of current
tools. But some imagination is still required.
Also Chester, acoustic pianos can sound completely different. A few weeks
ago a pianist played the same lines on two side by side Steinways
in a practice room. The sound was night and day. One was a dud.
Tone problems are not the exclusive domain of electronic instruments.
If you were working with the 'dud' Steinway, the same problem may
have occurred.
As an aside, current sampler technology allows the same resolution
(16 bits) as a CD recording. This is like listening to a bad CD.
You just have to listen past it.
Expression and nuance aside, I've heard good piano samples that
have better tone a bad CD recording.
Regards,
Mark Garvin
Mark Garvin
>Sounds like you need:
>1) a school where composition is regarded more highly...
>2) to build up a reputation among performers who've played your .. works
>I don't buy the argument that says "I got burned at Julliard, so I think
>MIDI teaches me more about how to write for live performers than (willing,
>attentive) live performers do". Nor do I buy the argument that says
This is typical of the logic being applied in this thread. Just to make
sure I've got it straight:
Step 1. You establish your reputation as a composer w groups who have
*already* played your works.
Step 2. You *then* get your works performed so that you can...
Step 3. Learn how to compose...
I wonder why I hadn't thought of doing this before.
In case you missed the point again:
It is near impossible for beginning composers to get their works performed.
MIDI is the best alternative.
Mark Garvin
Mark Garvin
>This is the 4th time you've invented this "apprehension about technology
>among the old school", even after we've carefully corrected you.
>Are you sure you're not trolling?
I said "I understand the apprehension about technology among the old
school, *BUT* not among computer users" THATS what I said Matt.
You read what you want.
Mark Garvin
Matthew H. Fields
for players I learned from the players. The books and the scores only
go so far. Recordings don't cut it, because they don't tell you what
a player can tell you about how the passage on the recording feels to play.
But there's good data about sounds in recordings, and I agree that
there's a lot of similar data in samplers.
Matthew H. Fields
Mark Garvin <mga...@panix.com> wrote:
>Ok, here's some ammnunition for your next rebuttal:
>
>The real shortcomings of samplers relate not so much to timbre as
>to expression. Humans are great at interpreting context. Always
>will be. It will be many long years before a machine learns about
>musical context and feeling. Of course, some conductors probably
>wish for a little less personal interpretation.
This is exactly what I have been saying all along here.
In the meanwhile, players know all about it. I know of a string ensemble
in Wellington, NZ that probably would be a good venue for the
string piece!
>One of the real shortcomings of MIDI is the lack of slurs. Every
>note is attacked equally. This is one of the main contributors to
>the 'mechanical' sound. MIDI has only one type of 'NOTE ON' event.
>Bad mistake. But easy to see in retrospect.
Will be solved by shoving phrases into one "Note" using pitchbend.
But it's still a machine, just as an oboe is still a machine.
An oboe is not an oboist.
>These two items are hard limits of current technology.
>The same could be applied to sampled music: This is only an approxi-
>mation of an oboe, but learn from it what you can.
Exactly. And it ain't an oboist, by any stretch.
>Keep in mind that a lot of the 'approximations' are in fact very good.
>My point about serial techiques is that young composers are convinced
>that this is a legitimate way to make music, when in fact they are
>math exercises.
Exactly as much of a "math exercise" as tonal counterpoint.
> I would regard this as a greater danger to a
>young composer, simply because it is a true 'mechanization' of
>a composer's approach. This is as opposed to MIDI, which is just a
>way for a composer to sound out his own ideas.
Huhn? Now you've got me curious what you mean by "serial" (my
answer is it http://www.umich.edu/~fields/gems/5.htm, but the server is
down at the moment, so you might have to wait a while for it to come up)
>Serial approaches are usually endorsed (sometimes more like enforced)
>by most schools, as you know. No thought given to the fact that much
>of the resulting music is just horrible. But I still say, it's up
>to the composer to know better.
You mean they still do this at Julliard? Last time I heard of ANY
school pushing serialism on composers was 1972.
And of course the folks who were pushing it were bandwagoneers,
not folks who understood what it was and what it was good for.
Today, IF there's a stylistic hegemony in the schools, it's mostly
minimalism!
Matthew H. Fields
Mark Garvin <mga...@panix.com> wrote:
>I said "I understand the apprehension about technology among the old
>school, *BUT* not among computer users" THATS what I said Matt.
>You read what you want.
Who's the old school?
The oldest of my teachers was born in the 1920's and has been active
in computer music since about 1975.
John Ladasky
Mark Garvin <mga...@panix.com> wrote:
>It is relatively easy to get, say, a quartet to play something. But not
>for a beginner. And in NY they expect serious money. The problem
>gets exponentially worse as the number of players increases. After
>a composer writes his quota of quartets, etc. then what? Who can
>afford to hire an orchestra?
This is why you start a rock band, and write tunes like "Titties
and Beer," or "Don't Eat the Yellow Snow." The resulting fame and fortune
allows you to amass the $100K or so it takes to hire the orchestra, copy-
ists, and rehearsal space.
Of course, you could always mortgage your house or sell drugs.
--
Unique ID : Ladasky, John Joseph Jr.
Title : BA Biochemistry, U.C. Berkeley, 1989 (Ph.D. perhaps 1998???)
Location : Stanford University, Dept. of Structural Biology, Fairchild D-105
Keywords : immunology, music, running, Green
Jeff Harrington
: In <3pfmnh$q...@core.bard.edu> dr...@bard.edu (David Rolsky) writes:
: To focus of the original question: I believe the person posting
: was trying to find out about classical and orchestral composition.
: He had apparently written some music in other forms and was trying
: to get a leg up by using MIDI. Well, I guess he came to the wrong
: place <g>...
: Maybe I was hoping for too much here. I understand the apprehension
: about technology among the old school, but we're all logged in via
: computer.
I think the point that a lot of people are making, and maybe it's a
implied subtext or a complete delusion on my part, in which case I'd like
to make it is:
Music is more than just the right notes at the right time. Much more.
You can blame most of the crappy post-minimalist music being featured
today by young composers on dependence on MIDI, in my opinion. The
breathing, the give and take of masses of sound, the way musicians
actually play music and not just notes is what is lost. And pacing...
MIDI is a disaster in real musical pacing. Music usually has to be
played fast to even sound acceptable on today's crappy synths, so there's
no way to figure timings for holes without re-imagining the piece
*outside* of the MIDI enviroment!
You can't get a MIDI synthesizer to do a musical rubato, you have to do
it. Phrasing? A lost art in MIDI... Dynamic attenuation, simplistic in
MIDI, unless you perform the stuff yourself and use a MIDI recording. To
do this right, you have to have actually written the piece, learned it
and then perform it!
I don't think anybody is saying MIDI isn't a good way to sketch ideas and
to get the big picture of a piece realized... and sometimes its a good
way to propagate your music before it gets performed, which is extremely
important in today's music world.
But a composer should be afraid, very afraid, of getting dependent on
MIDI. It may, in fact, be our greatest musical problem now... aside from
inspiration... and technique regarding momentum and goals...
Just my $.02... from somebody who uses MIDI constantly and who has
written MIDI software...
--
Jeff Harrington
idea...@dorsai.dorsai.org
--
(*) ANNOUNCING!! Net in Arcadia - http://www.parnasse.com/ (*)
(*) Jeff's Musical WWW Site->>>> http://www.parnasse.com/jeff.htm (*)
(*) Elsie Russell's Pics! Jeff Harrington's Music ->>>> Art + The Bizarre (*)
(*) IdEAL ORDER Psychic TV - All Days But Thursdays(ABC) on CBS Since 1984 (*)
(*) My E-Music - http://www.iuma.com/IUMA/band_html/Harrington,_Jeff.html (*)
Peter Kerr
> Also Chester, acoustic pianos can sound completely different. A few weeks
> ago a pianist played the same lines on two side by side Steinways
> in a practice room. The sound was night and day. One was a dud.
> Tone problems are not the exclusive domain of electronic instruments.
> If you were working with the 'dud' Steinway, the same problem may
> have occurred.
Was it the Steinway, or was it the room? In other words was the dud piano
still dud if you swapped the two around?
It's all very well writing duo piano pieces. Playing them is when the fun
starts ;-)
--
Peter Kerr bodger
School of Music chandler
University of Auckland neo-Luddite
Ken Moore
>Agreed with qualifications. Again, the beginning composer usually
>does not have the opportunity to use real musicians.
I am surprised that Mark thinks this: perhaps his circumstances are
unusual.
I am still, after about 20 years composing part time and very
intermittently, a beginner composer, nearing the end of my first year
as a mature student reading music at Reading University, Berkshire,
England.
So far my course work has involved only so-called "strict
composition", that is composition in a prescribed style such as
renaissance, baroque or classical. These are little more than harmony
and counterpoint exercises, so replay at the piano by the lecturer is
perfectly adequate feedback. However, the second and third years of the
course include "free composition", for prescribed instruments. Last
term, the first year ensemble (= chamber music) class was required to
play and record some exercises written by the second year students.
This term, we have had a visit by Jane Manning, soprano, and "Jane's
Minstrels", the chamber ensemble with which she mostly performs
nowadays. They spent two afternoons playing through and commenting on
compositions by the more able second and third year composers. This
visit was sponsored jointly by the University and the British "Society
for the Promotion of New Music". The SPNM was founded in 1942 and
continues to flourish.
The staff and students of the Music Department are directly supportive
of beginner composers. Knowing that my tutor was organising a concert
(fairly light) for the end of this term, I showed him a movement for
flute trio which I wrote about 12 years ago. He is now pressing me to
organise an ensemble to perform it; three of my fellow students have
agreed to play for me; and rehearsals start next week. I don't know
how they think of this, but I certainly regard myself as morally
committed to play their compositions when they need me.
I have other possibilities for hearing my compositions. When I finish
my wind octet, I shall take it to a chamber music weekend, where I am
confident my friends there will play for me. One point which remains
unclear to me is whether Mark has difficulty getting live performers
because his music needs a professional technique. I don't feel the
need to write to extremes, certainly not in these "early" works which I
am writing to learn the craft, so I am content with performances by
good amateurs and students.
Reading this thread has made me think about the relationship between a
composer and his customers and, even more fundamentally, the question
of who a composer's customers are. I realise than my tacit assumption
is that, for the present, my main customers are the players. Mark's
must be the audience, since he seems content not to have any players at
all.
--
Ken Moore (K...@hpsl.demon.co.uk)
David Rolsky
>was trying to find out about classical and orchestral composition.
>He had apparently written some music in other forms and was trying
>to get a leg up by using MIDI. Well, I guess he came to the wrong
>place <g>...
Yeah, good luck with the orchestra music. There is no sure way to get a
piece played by an orchestra. A beginner doesn't even have a prayer so
why bother asking. Hopefully, by the time you're REALLY ready to write
for an orchestra you'll have an opportunity somehow (they are out there.)
>Maybe I was hoping for too much here. I understand the apprehension
>about technology among the old school, but we're all logged in via
>computer.
I'm not afraid of technology but it doesn't substitute for live players
and it doesn't substitute for imagination. I just finished my first
orchestra piece (after studying composition for 4 years, BTW) and even
though I wrote it at the piano I could never play most of it up to
tempo. Thats where my imagination comes in, and let me tell you, it
sounds much better in my head than through MIDI.
Jana Lasea
of a Kurzweil 2000...
Jana Lasea
s938...@cosine.up.ac.za
Matthew H. Fields
Who is "against MIDI"? And where on a Kurzweil 2000 is the nagging voice that
says "oh, composer, this note would be neat IF I could play it, but really,
my instrument doesn't do that"? Who'd want that in a synth?
The topic was not pro/con MIDI but the role of MIDI in learning
to write for conventional players.
Craig Weston
>about technology among the old school, but we're all logged in via
>computer.
>Mark Garvin
No, No--a thousand times no!!!!! I (the originator of this thread that
won't die) do use technology in my compositions, and, as near as I can
tell, so do all of the other people who have been on roughly the same
"side" of this issue. No one has ever tried to say (in one of these
threads) that we shouldn't use technology. The debate is over how it
should be used: what it's good for, what the most
musically/aesthetically interesting uses might be, and what its
limitations and/or poor and/or uninteresting applications might be.
This is an incredibly blatant straw-man argument. Can't we get past
this and just debate the issue?
__________________________________________________________________
|Craig Weston--Assistant Professor of Music Theory, Composition, |
| & Electronic/Computer Music, Iowa State University|
| |
|e-mail: cwe...@iastate.edu |
|WWW: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~cweston/homepage.html |
|________________________________________________________________|
David Horne
: Hmmm, unlike Craig, I find that most of what I learned about writing well
: for players I learned from the players. The books and the scores only
: go so far. Recordings don't cut it, because they don't tell you what
: a player can tell you about how the passage on the recording feels to play.
Naturally, it'll depend on the player. How many times have you encountered
a performer that will easily perform a passage that another will claim to
be impossible? I think that you always have to remain slightly cynical.
Indeed, sometimes you have to be a step ahead of the performer. If you
want a micro-tonal trill, you'd better ensure beforehand that said trill
is actually possible etc. Spending a lot of time on both sides of the
Atlantic I frequently encounter such problems. For example, many
orchestral percussionists in Europe shy away from four-mallet technique,
claiming it to be a 'soloist's thing.' I'm not talking about complex
four-mallet passages either! And while I'm bitching about it, I remember
having to convince percussionists at a certain reknowned dusty old
conservatory in Philadelphia that, yes, a cymbal will make a noise when it
is bowed, and yes, so will a vibraphone, and no, you don't just hit the
cymbal with a stick hoping that it will sound the same:)
Another bee in my bonnet is string harmonics, which no matter how
carefully I specify, still illicit questions, and I'm beginning to wonder
if that occurs for no reason other than that some performers like to be
difficult. And while I'm at it...... they rarely play proper sul pont
unless you're holding a gun to their head, glissandos are *not* played as
you write them .. ad nauseam.
Sometimes, if you really want a particular sound that you know will create
problems with other performers, you just go ahead and accept the
consequences. I think this can be worth it on occasion. As gorgeous and
unique as a bass clarinet sounds when playing written high A's and B's (4
and five leger lines respectively) the fact is that many players will
either refuse to do it or throw the music on the floor in disgust. In such
instances, relating the story of the 20 year old player who could do it
'beautifully' is neither helpful, or indeed wise!
David
David Horne
: Matthew H. Fields (fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu) wrote:
: : Hmmm, unlike Craig, I find that most of what I learned about writing well
: : for players I learned from the players. The books and the scores only
: : go so far. Recordings don't cut it, because they don't tell you what
: : a player can tell you about how the passage on the recording feels to play.
: Naturally, it'll depend on the player. How many times have you encountered
: a performer that will easily perform a passage that another will claim to
: be impossible? I think that you always have to remain slightly cynical.
I realise I shouldn't follow up one of my own posts, but I always found
this interesting. If you recall, there is a very effective bassoon solo in
the first movt. of the Ravel G major piano concerto which goes all the way
up to a top E. I remember writing something which had a C natural and then
an E. The performer was having problems making this smooth, and he was
very good so I discussed it with him. He told me that those particular
notes were rather difficult to perform smoothly in succession, and that it
is in fact fairly easy to go from the C sharp to the E, as Ravel does. I
find it hard to believe that this wasn't something of which Ravel was
aware, and just goes to show that even in the most seemingly effortless
passage, a great deal of prior thought concerning practicality etc. seems
to have occurred. Anyway, I've always adored Ravel's quip to Wittgenstein
about performers being slaves:)
David
Craig Weston
>... Oboe is very easy to mimic. To
>make things fair, consider comparing a recording to a recording (tape
>to sampler). Could you always tell the difference between a sample
>and a recording? I've fooled several people, incl musicians, on
>short stretches of sampled music with certain instruments. Most
>brass are harder to do, as are solo strings. But this is still
>current state of the art, which changes every day.
OK, let's rephrase this. Could I hear the difference between an oboist
playing (or a recording of this, to keep your question intact), and a
good-quality sampler which you have skillfully programmed to sound as
much as possible like an oboe being played by a human being? Maybe,
maybe not, depending on the quality of the sampling technology, your
skill at programming with it, and my skill as a listener. But...
(take two) Could I hear the difference between an oboist playing (or a
recording of this, to keep your question intact), and a good-quality
sampler, assuming that both are receiving their instructions from a
traditionaly-notedted "score" within the Western conventions of
notation? (Let's suppose that it is a Finale score file.) Absolutely,
without hesitation, yes.
This is the point: it is possible to used sampled sounds in a way that
they sound very "real" (the aesthetic boredom of that proposition
notwithstanding), but in order to do this, one must "instruct" the
intstument in a very different, much more detailed way than one
"instructs" a human performer. Just feeding standard notation to MIDI
gear, as has been argued by many in this thread, *will not* teach you
any more about orchestration than singing the notes, playing them on a
piano, jaw harp, yadda yadda yadda blah blah blah.
IMHO, the most interesting computer music uses strategies to produce
interesting, complex sounds in different ways than aoustic instruments,
without having to get into the quagmire of programming every minute
detail of what a human performer does without being (explicitly) told.
Myself I have been pleased with the results I have gotten using granular
synthesis techniques. (For those not familiar woth the term: using
bajillions of overlapping grains of sound to create the "aural illusion"
of complex, dynamic timbres. High-level data abstraction [I use lisp]
is helpful to keep your hands off of the grubby details of those
bajillions of notes.) It's actually alot like human-performed music in
a very abstract way. By relegating alot of details to a different level
of the paradigm (in this case, the programming of the granular synthesis
apparatus) the composer is able to concentrate on the higher-level
musical phenomena.
>I used to work at complex vertical chord
>analysis just to find out about underlying motion in pieces I like.
>It's always nice to be able to do the tedious stuff, but let's not
>confuse that with music. I'd much rather speed the process up and
>figure out what's happening thru larger stretches of music, rather
>than waste hours going thru a few bars by hand.
This has recently been a hot topic in theory circles--"is anything lost
by using a computer program to manipulate pc-sets, instead of
laboriously doing it by hand?" Many people (including myself) say
"yesy, something is lost." The value of "wasting hours going thru a few
bars by hand" is in the *intimate* and *intuitive* familiarity one gains
with the material at hand. I believe that I have a lot of intimate and
intuitive knowledge about the properties and interconnections of pitch
collections because of the time I've spent laboriously sorting them out
by hand. I'm not sure that intimate and intuitive knowledge can be
gained any other way. MIDI-based products actively marlet themselves as
allowing people to write music without having to know as much about
music. Fine and dindy. But it often shows in the music. There is no
substitute for intimate and intuitive knowledge.
>(the previous is a cue for the 'grumpy old man' to jump in and say
>"that's how it was in the old days and we *liked it*!")
This is one thing I love about music technology--that I (in my
thirties!) have a whole arsenal of "way back when" stories ...
>The real shortcomings of samplers relate not so much to timbre as
>to expression. Humans are great at interpreting context. Always
>will be. It will be many long years before a machine learns about
>musical context and feeling. Of course, some conductors probably
>wish for a little less personal interpretation.
>One of the real shortcomings of MIDI is the lack of slurs. Every
>note is attacked equally. This is one of the main contributors to
>the 'mechanical' sound. MIDI has only one type of 'NOTE ON' event.
>Bad mistake. But easy to see in retrospect.
Agreed. There are ways around these, but only if you concede that
writing for electro-acoustic resources is different than writing for
human-performed acoustic intruments. That has been the point all along.
Matthew H. Fields
I've always found that when string players are being annoying about their
harmonics, if I borrow the first cellist's axe and demo a note or two, they
suddenly shut up and do their job (can't fool me).
This happens pretty rarely, though. Most of the players I've met would
rather not go through the embarrassment of being found out on that sort
of thing, or more likely, really have the end goal of sounding good, and
can't be bothered with doing things just to give the composer a hard time.
David Cleary
Mark Garvin (mga...@panix.com) wrote:
: It is relatively easy to get, say, a quartet to play something. But not
: for a beginner. And in NY they expect serious money. The problem
: gets exponentially worse as the number of players increases. After
: a composer writes his quota of quartets, etc. then what? Who can
: afford to hire an orchestra?
No one ever said being a composer was going to be cheap. Good players
rarely play anything for free. Expect to spend serious money if you
want to be a composer.
Your best bet to get live performances IMHO is to cultivate friendships
with performers, as many as you can. Most anything composers get in their
profession happens through personal contacts. I go to *a lot* of concerts
in the Boston area, attending both the concerts and (just as importantly)
the receptions and parties afterwards. I've met a lot of fine players,
conductors, and ensembles that way and have gotten commissioned by some of
them. It can take a long time to make the kind of headway you want, but
it's the best way to go, IMHO. Performer friends are also more likely to
give you a price break if you're worried about money. Get social! And
write for players you know, who like your music.
Orchestra pieces and operas are the toughest to get performed. Your best
bet for getting an orchestra piece played if you're an unknown (like me)
is to make the piece ca. 6-12 minutes long (concert overture length) of
moderate difficulty for standard-sized orchestra and then cajole a
conductor you know well into doing it. Do you play an orchestral
instrument? If so, you might consider joining a decent amateur orchestra,
paying your dues by playing in the group for a year or two, then
approaching the conductor about having them play a piece of yours (make
sure it's something the group can actually *play*.) Also send the piece to
as many "calls for scores" and contests as you can--don't expect much, but
who knows what can happen (and don't give up the first year, or the second
year, or the fifth, or the tenth. Keep sending the darned thing out
there.....).
If you're determined to write orchestra pieces that are difficult to
play, call for large forces, or are long, go ahead and write them. Just
don't expect people to come knocking on your door to perform them. This
is not a profession for the impatient, faint of heart, or faint of
pocketbook.
Not trying to flame here at all, just be realistic. Hope this is useful.
Dave
Matthew H. Fields
David Horne <ho...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>is in fact fairly easy to go from the C sharp to the E, as Ravel does. I
And the neat thing is that it sounds delightful in harmonic context! That's
a meshing of feels-good with sounds-good. Lots of ideas like this to steal
from Ravel!
KEITH K HARDWICK
> The apprehension is that folks will come to rehearsals with stuff that
> sounds great on synth but is unplayable, then mistakenly think the
> performers aren't being fair to them or aren't good enough. And I've
> seen this happen. Especially to beginners. And the apprehension is that
> by failing to clarify the limits of the roles of the technology, we're
> creating this situation when we advocate the technology.
>
This happened to me several years ago in a wind quartet. I took a "recording"
of my score to the first rehersal. 'Cause it was very difficult and "I couldn't
always have a WW quartet in my back pocket" I bombed. Thankfully my teacher
let me do it. I learned what a HUGE mistake it was and he stepped in and turned
off the tape, took over the rehersal, and the piece was saved.
NO ONE could have just told me this. I had to learn. So, does everyone else.
I think this is why Dr. Weston, Mr. Fields and others are not inclined to
support this position--cause they've been there. But you can't tell a newie
this, we must learn it ourselves. The rest of you should be there to pick up
the "pieces." IMHO.
-----------------SIG.FILE UNDER CONSTRUCTION---------------
KEITH K HARDWICK
post.
This was/is my mistake.
Matthew H. Fields
KEITH K HARDWICK <HARD...@vax1.acs.jmu.edu> wrote:
>I hope Dr. Fields will forgive me for stripping him of his DMA in the last
>post.
>This was/is my mistake.
????? I'm not a degree, I'm a FREE MAN!!!!!! (apologies to those who
weren't into surrealist tv in the 70's)
Naw, really, I post under the name "Matt" ;-)
Craig Weston
>I hope Dr. Fields will forgive me for stripping him of his DMA in the
>last post.
Oddly enough, in situations like academic discourse or conferences, when
"prestige" titles like Dr. or Prof. could apply to many or most of the
participants, they are not only rarely used, but when they are used, it
is often as a kind of reverse snobbery. i.e. to cite or refer to
someone as Dr. or Prof. so-and-so is really a subtle slam, not an honor.
So it's maybe it's me who should be forgiving you :)
Just kidding, honest. But one of the nice things about the net is that
titles and such matter less than in other situations. The classroom is
one thing, but on a newsgroup I'd rather not be Mr. *or* Dr. I only
identify myself by title in my .sig to give some context to my comments,
not to imply that it has anything to do with the weight of my opinions.
Michael P. Mossey
Jeff Harrington <idea...@news.dorsai.org> wrote:
>
>But a composer should be afraid, very afraid, of getting dependent on
>MIDI. It may, in fact, be our greatest musical problem now... aside from
>inspiration... and technique regarding momentum and goals...
>
That strikes me as like saying, "Allergies are my greatest
health problem...aside from my lung cancer and heart disease..."
Or do you really think they are problemsof similar magnitude? It
seems to me that somebody with inspiration and a modicum of technique,
having used only MIDI, would be blown away the first time they heard
good acoustic music. Maybe I'm wrong...
--
Mike Mossey "Give any one idea a push and it falls down
easily. The pusher, and the pushed, are then
engaged in that entertainment called a discussion."
-my best recollection of a John Cage quote
Lenny Erwine
> In article <3pflqu$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
> What I find disturbing is not the technology, which is wonderful, but
> the insistance that this technology replaces performers, which it doesn't,
> and the deliberate twisting of my words and suggestion that I'm anti-tech,
> which I'm not.
True, MIDI does not replace performers at all, but the concept of MIDI is
in my opinion, a checkpoint for composition. That is, I compose
something while sitting at my keyboard - something I can play. I compose
for me and if it's multi-layered with different sounds played from the
keyboard, I MIDI it and play it one part at a time, sort of like a
computer's version of a 4 track recorder. I can then hear all parts
together and get an idea on it and even record it for the
performers-to-be to hear. It gives the performers the feel ahead of time
and allows them to have their own mental checkpoints for their
performance. And if I'm, say, writing for a clarinet, I try
mini-sequences whilst one-on-one with a clarinet player to get a feel of
what's concievable for the clarinet player to play. For a composer, I
think it's best to learn some type of instrument, and scale-wise, a full
sized electric piano with MIDI is a good choice, although not necissary.
I've also found that many a composer do not know how to play an
instrument and do much better when teamed up with another composer who
can play an instrument or few. Teamwork such as this greatly expands
creativity, and with the right amount of understanding and "breathing
room" for both composers, could also lend to individuality within the
team also.
Forgive me if I've stumbled into something that will be too radical of a
view, as I've never taken a single lesson or class on composing or
performing anything, but am just one of those "naturals" offering an
opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond the eve and before the dawn, where dreams and fear abide
my hope sustains and grows upon this outer strength inside
Never to fall, lest I fade away; or in stillness grow insane.
for if it wanes with the end of day, the hope is all in vain.
Jeff Harrington
: In article <D8sM4...@dorsai.org>,
: Jeff Harrington <idea...@news.dorsai.org> wrote:
: >But a composer should be afraid, very afraid, of getting dependent on
: >MIDI. It may, in fact, be our greatest musical problem now... aside from
: >inspiration... and technique regarding momentum and goals...
: >
: That strikes me as like saying, "Allergies are my greatest
: health problem...aside from my lung cancer and heart disease..."
Reminds me of when I first moved to NY. I used to just walk around, any
time of night to see whatever was going down. Came up on this junky one
night who was talking to a cop. The guy was literally covered with
festering sores (why am I telling this story?). Cop asked him, "How's it
going?" Junky goes, "Man, I'm feeling much better, so much better."
Relativity!
: Or do you really think they are problemsof similar magnitude? It
: seems to me that somebody with inspiration and a modicum of technique,
: having used only MIDI, would be blown away the first time they heard
: good acoustic music. Maybe I'm wrong...
I think it's all related and it comes down to the belief that music is a
bunch of notes played at the right time and at the right speed. The
reason most compositions these days are inelegant in their goal
orientations is because of this mindset. That is, most pieces often go
where they seem to be going, obviously, usually ending up there with a
plodding drama, or else they go nowhere!
To my way of thinking MIDI just encourages this kind of thinking.
Additionally, because it's so easy to cut and paste big chunks of music,
it encourages lame repetition and formulaic compositional techniqes often
relying on lame extra-musical processes. Getting back to singing and to
the big picture of a piece is only going to be hindered by MIDI.
The amazing thing is that MIDI is the tool most composers have dreamed of
for years. It allows playback from a screen showing music notation;
realization of the fastest musics, etc... When I first got my MIDI rig,
I was writing my MFA thesis piece and bringing in music to show my
teacher. There was this one section of music that she especially liked.
In the end it was the 5-10 measures which she said were the absolute
finest part of the piece. At the time I thought this is just too weird.
She's picked out the 10 measures I wrote when my computer was on the
fritz; when I just sat down one day with a pencil and paper. I later
told her that that was the case and she just smiled.... she said in her
Polish accent, "You should use computers to write computer music and
that's it."
Certainly, these problems with goal-directed elegance and "musicality" have
certainly been with us this century... the scary thing for me is that the
public and beginning composers see MIDI as miraculous. Take Kenneth
Branagh's selection of the composer for Henry V. He used an actor in his
company who had a MIDI studio. The guy handed him a tape with a Proteus
or Kurzweill or something blowing hard and wham... the guy had the gig.
And before I get flamed for being anti-MIDI let me say again, that not
only do I use MIDI every day for at *least* 2 hours, that I've written
MIDI programs, patch editing utilities, etc.... and at my site are
connections to a bunch of pseudo-musical MIDI files! And if you write me
you'll get a bunch of MIDI-realized pieces on tape, because most of my
recent music has been unperformed... etc... etc...
Simon Gray
Horne) writes:
| this interesting. If you recall, there is a very effective bassoon solo in
| the first movt. of the Ravel G major piano concerto which goes all the way
| up to a top E. I remember writing something which had a C natural and then
| an E. The performer was having problems making this smooth, and he was
| very good so I discussed it with him. He told me that those particular
| notes were rather difficult to perform smoothly in succession, and that it
| is in fact fairly easy to go from the C sharp to the E, as Ravel does. I
As far as I was able to glean from the bassoon player who I lived with for
nearly 4 years, each individual bassoon has easier & harder note combinations
to do - I wrote a piece for her once which deliberately avoided all the dodgy
notes which her instrument had. 6 months later when it came to performance,
she had in the meanwhile got a new instrument (I can't remember if it was a
Heckel or a Puchner) which had a completely different set of dodgy notes, which
unfortunately most of them had particular prominence in the piece ! Heck, even
individual crooks can make a surprisingly large amount of difference, as I can
testify to from the day I had to spend in the woodwind shop listening to all 50
that they had in that day...
Me, when I bought my trumpet, I went to the shop, said 'You got any Bach Strads
?', got given the one they had in to try, played a C major scale from bottom to
top, said 'That'll do', handed over my cheque for 250 lbs (I got a good deal !)
& got straight back on the next train home :)
--
Simon Gray, Musician, in Birmingham, England, UK, European Union.
<a href="http://metro.turnpike.net/M/mahayana/index.htm">W3 Page</a>
si...@mahayana.demon.co.uk |GMU u**$ 5+++ t+@ d? H+ s-:-- !p+ h- |
Maturity is realising the |!au a- w++ !v C++ N++ K !W(+) M-- Y+ D f |
volume knob also turns left|-po+ tv+ b- e+++ f r--->+++ !n !y+ g+(-) |
David Horne
[etc.]
: individual crooks can make a surprisingly large amount of difference, as I can
: that they had in that day...
Yes, crooks make a world of difference. I believe that the type of crook
used in France, at least at the turn of the century, facilitated the
performance of high passages.
David
Matthew H. Fields
Bassoonists that I've consulted keep several bocals handy for solo work,
and will even swap them around on their instruments depending on what
kind of passage they're going to play.
The kind of crooks we saw in the US in 1972 seem to have returned to
our congress.
Andy Daniels - Southampton UK
writes:
> Another bee in my bonnet is string harmonics, which no matter how
> carefully I specify, still illicit questions, and I'm beginning to wonder
> if that occurs for no reason other than that some performers like to be
> difficult. And while I'm at it...... they rarely play proper sul pont
> unless you're holding a gun to their head, glissandos are *not* played as
> you write them .. ad nauseam.
I know exactly what you mean, here. At a rehearsal for a recent
performance of one of my works I found the Cellist and Bass player
struggling with multiphonics. They came to the next rehearsal claiming
that what I'd written was unplayable and suggested double-stopping
instead!!!
Now, I'm no string player, but I jumped in and demonstrated quite
easily the technique, and I've begun to think that one of the problems
of being so close to an instrument is that your technique can
actually restrict your experimentation/openmindedness because of the
classical refinements and concentrations you make as a student
performer.
I should add, however, that the plyers in question finally got the
multiphonics working and they sounded fine.
And so to MIDI. I've used Finale for the last three scores or so. I've
got a fairly decent sound source, but I never use playback until the
end of the the day's work. In fact, it's almost a kind of light relief
after slogging with pen and paper all day to hear how the machine
*interperts* the music. But in no way does it represent the ideas that
have come out of the day's composition, just as the piano could never
hope to bring home the true essence of the orchestral palette, let
alone harmonics, glissandos and multiphonics!
These tools (pianos and MIDI) aid composition - they won't do the work
for you.
Andy.
*******************************************************************************
************ Andy Daniels ************
************ Composer ************
************ Southampton, UK ************
************ E-mail an...@daniels.demon.co.uk ************
*******************************************************************************
Michael P. Mossey
Jeff Harrington <idea...@news.dorsai.org> wrote:
>
>The amazing thing is that MIDI is the tool most composers have dreamed of
>for years. It allows playback from a screen showing music notation;
>realization of the fastest musics, etc... When I first got my MIDI rig,
>I was writing my MFA thesis piece and bringing in music to show my
>teacher. There was this one section of music that she especially liked.
>In the end it was the 5-10 measures which she said were the absolute
>finest part of the piece. At the time I thought this is just too weird.
>She's picked out the 10 measures I wrote when my computer was on the
>fritz; when I just sat down one day with a pencil and paper. I later
>told her that that was the case and she just smiled.... she said in her
>Polish accent, "You should use computers to write computer music and
>that's it."
>
Just this week I have discovered how important it is for me to write
away from the keyboard. I'm not good at it yet, but today I wrote
about four measures away from the keyboard, took it to my piano
module, and I was blown away. I can't wait to try it on an acoustic
piano.
Kurt Sander
> No one ever said being a composer was going to be cheap. Good players
> rarely play anything for free. Expect to spend serious money if you
> want to be a composer.
Isn't this the saddest commentary of them all? When we have to pay
players to perform our works, we are dabbling in an unhealthy area. I
strongly discourage this practice in any area except for recording
purposes, when of course we rely ona musician's skill for our profit.
Everyone has had an opportunity to suck the life blood from the living
composer. Whether it be the competitions that charge 20+ dollars as an
"entry fee," or the publishers that let us keep 10% of our art, or the
performers who insult our craft by charging us to replentish their
liturature, we cannot afford to prostitute ourselves any longer. We have
been made victims by the copy machine, the university, and the dust bowl
American culture. I make no monetary apologies for my music. Besides, I
don't have the financial resources for it.
Long live the determination of the American composer, and may it be
nourished by the music in our heads and not the money in our wallets!
Kurt Sander
Guido tum Suden
Hallo, Mark...
Am 16.05.95 schriebst du in der REC.MUSIC.COMPOSE:
> I have to question which one of us is trying to do this. Besides,
> if *anything* works, why not do it? Is it wrong to use a piano to
> compose? How many composers can complete an entire orchestral score
> without going near a musical instrument? Stravinsky couldn't write
> three BARS without a piano. Is he exempt from the
> slave-to-a-machine criticism that's being leveled at *beginning*
> composers?
Of course it is not wrong to use a piano, but you should be able to
work without.
The reason is that a piano is only a piano. It may help you imagine
what you want to write, but can only be a real help if you write
something for a single piano.
Using MIDI is the same. You can produce a lot more sounds, but that's
all and that's not composing.
> The arguments I've heard so far have limited validity, and even
> then only within the academic realm. I am sure that you and other
> prof's have no trouble getting students and various players to demo
> techniques and instr. ranges. I've heard this same argument over
> and over from academics. This has absolutely no relevance for
> someone who is not in your environment. In fact, if some profs at
> Juilliard can't get their works played, how is a *student* going to
> hear their own orchestral compositions?
MIDI works good for that. I use it to, but I would never use it to
compose. That's desk work. When I finished a part, I put it into the
sequenzer and listen to it (if it sounds completely different from
what I thought, I have to work on my ears). Then very often I
edit single notes, that doesn't suit my ears. So using MIDI has a
value for me too.
> So first, explain why MIDI is not ideal for complex counterpoint
> exercises (you'd rather they played all parts?), chord and pitch
> analysis, checking instrument ranges (yes it's easy to do),
So far so good. Here I have to disagree. Most instruments on Synths
etc. are not in the correct range.
Everybody who composes for other instruments than the ones he plays
must have a (don't no the english term) book for Instruments.
> checking timbres (works much better than you imply), proofing
> scores for wrong notes, etc.
Yes
> Then explain why MIDI-gen'd compositions are any different from
> someone in the old school 'hacking away' at a piano.
MIDI is better, but if you only know that, that's no composition
at all, it's just song writing (which I also do sometimes).
> Couldn't teaching serial composition methods 'make' a composer into
> a mindless hack? I've seen it happen. Please don't tell me you
> haven't.
Do you mean there a really any serial composers left.
> If you have a need to make a musical statement, nothing (including
> the evil computer or the evil Schoenberg) will prevent it. Others
> are destined to simply have fun.
And doing song writing not composing.
> FIRST the composer has to learn to be a composer. (It doesn't
> matter how) THEN they can sit under the tree and write.
> Just doesn't work in reverse order, no matter how much we (both)
> wish it.
So it seems we agreed.
Guido
Craig Weston
have, of course, enabled performances in many other ways: serving as
intermediary betweem producers and performers; providing performance
materials, publicity efforts, etc.; giving a "gratitude" dinner for
performers (hey--I'm a good cook: this is nothing to sneeze at!),
"enshrining" performers' names on printed scores; and so on.
I have once or twice paid an entry fee for a contest, although as a matter
of principle I generally do not.
Recording, of course, is a somewhat different matter, and payment is
sometimes appropriatte, depending on the nature of the recording and how
it is to be used.
I'm not saying this to claim any greatness for me or my music. To be
honest, I'm not sure when I've ever even had the opportunity to "buy" a
performance--the performing world doesn't seem to work that way,
generally.
I just got my meager little check from ASCAP. See, we're supposed to *get
paid* when our music is performed! (Maybe I'll start offering to "kick
back" the royalties to the performers as enticement--those 20 bucks would
really carry a lot of persuasive power, huh?)
David Cleary
: I have never once paid out of my pocket to have a piece performed. I
If you're in an academic environment, that's easier to have happen.
That's especially true if you are a faculty member (students after all
want to stay on the good side of faculty, and other faculty will often
play a colleague's piece for free as a professional courtesy). I spent
nine years in college getting B.M., M.M., and D.M.A., had a lot of pieces
played and never once had to pay anyone. I've found it quite different
when you engage freelance (non-college) performers outside the university
setting. I've never had to pay players who were part of an *established*
ensemble either. But when you give concerts of your own music (those
pieces you want played that are not commissioned, etc.) or in composer
collective situations, that becomes entirely different in my experience. I
also found that such performers don't usually go for the "I'll cook you a
dinner" offer (wish they would--maybe you're a better cook than me :) ),
though often they'll give you a price break since the money's coming out
of your pocket--even more so if they know you. And thank heaven for that.
: I have once or twice paid an entry fee for a contest, although as a matter
: of principle I generally do not.
I hate having to do this, but I do anyway. I draw the line in contest
situations where there is no prize except a performance offered to the
winner; *no one* IMHO should have to pay an entry fee for a simple call
for scores. I always pay the application fees for colonies, Rome Prize,
and festivals like June-in-Buffalo as well, but I'm not fond of doing so.
Geez, the Rome Prize application fee is $50 now!
: Recording, of course, is a somewhat different matter, and payment is
: sometimes appropriatte, depending on the nature of the recording and how
: it is to be used.
Given the fees one usually has to pay CD labels, I have doubts about
recordings as a moneymaker.
: I just got my meager little check from ASCAP. See, we're supposed to *get
: paid* when our music is performed! (Maybe I'll start offering to "kick
: back" the royalties to the performers as enticement--those 20 bucks would
: really carry a lot of persuasive power, huh?)
I know, we *are* supposed to get paid. Of course if House bills like
H.U.789 get passed, we won't even get that (today restaurants, tomorrow
universities). Nobody ever said this country has its priorities straight,
either....
Thanks for sharing your experiences.
Dave
Craig Weston
(by way of clarification...)
>If you're in an academic environment, that's easier to have happen.
>That's especially true if you are a faculty member (students after all
>want to stay on the good side of faculty, and other faculty will often
>play a colleague's piece for free as a professional courtesy). I spent
>nine years in college getting B.M., M.M., and D.M.A., had a lot of
>pieces played and never once had to pay anyone.
Yes--many people have an entirely distorted view of the "perks" of being
a composer who teaches at a university, but having your performing
collegues take your music seriously is indeed one of them. There are
generally at least a few such performers who will actually consider it
part of their job to at least seriously consider if not actually perform
your music--on campus, or, if your lucky, elsewhere. However, I should
add that I haven't been a faculty member for long, so when I reported
not having paid for performances out of my pocket, that pertained mostly
to the time when I *wasn't* a university faculty member.
(Also one little picky-uny thing: graduate students often bristle at
being refered to as "in college" or "college students." Obviously, it
doesn't/didn't bother you, since you refered to yourself that way.)
>I've found it quite different when you engage freelance (non-college)
>performers outside the universitym setting. I've never had to pay
>players who were part of an *established* ensemble either. But when you
>give concerts of your own music (those pieces you want played that are
>not commissioned, etc.) or in composer collective situations, that
>becomes entirely different in my experience.
What I've tried to do in these situations is simultaneously recruit
performers *and* a presenting organization who will pay them. What the
composer does is all the leg work, getting the two parties together,
etc. The presenting organization will often appreciate having the
composer assume some of this burden (especially if it includes progam &
program note preparation, publicity, etc.)
>I also found that such performers don't usually go for the "I'll cook
>you a dinner" offer (wish they would--maybe you're a better cook than
>me :) ), though often they'll give you a price break since the money's
>coming out of your pocket--even more so if they know you. And thank
>heaven for that.
Yeah, the "I'll cook you dinner" hardly suffices as payment. It's more
like an ackowledgement that they (probably) got payed less than usual
and undoubtedly had to rehearse more than usual in order to pull it off.
>Thanks for sharing your experiences.
Actually, I think this is something composers don't talk enough about.
No composition student should get a degree without having paid some
serious attention to strategies for getting performances, rehearsal
ettiquette, etc. The first contest I ever had success in involved a
reading session with a major professional orchestra, with several
composers (7 or 8, I believe). Now, we all know that a major
professional orchestra is about the most anal type of organization on
earth--one simply must play by their sense of ettiquette. One of the
composers really made a fool of himself: starting with parts
paper-clipped together, and going on from there ... giving instructions
directly to the players (rather than communicating with the conductor),
.. copious wrong notes, etc etc. Obviously, no one had ever spent any
time discussing rehearsal ettiquette with this composer! And, as I'm
sure Matt would point out, he obviously never spent any time observing a
rehearsal, either.
It's hard enough to get music played, without pissing-off the
performers!
Mark Garvin
>In article <3peqb2$a...@panix2.panix.com>, mga...@panix.com (Mark Garvin) wrote:
>> Also Chester, acoustic pianos can sound completely different. A few weeks
>> ago a pianist played the same lines on two side by side Steinways
>> in a practice room. The sound was night and day. One was a dud.
>> Tone problems are not the exclusive domain of electronic instruments.
>> If you were working with the 'dud' Steinway, the same problem may
>> have occurred.
>Was it the Steinway, or was it the room? In other words was the dud piano
>still dud if you swapped the two around?
It was the Steinway, but you have brought up an even more interesting
point. The original discussion dealt with playback of a sampled piano
sounding like a good acoustic piano. I suppose if it came down to it,
even placement in the room could affect sound. In that case, speaker
placement.
Mark G.
KEITH K HARDWICK
> Simon Gray (si...@mahayana.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> [etc.]
> : individual crooks can make a surprisingly large amount of difference, as I can
> : testify to from the day I had to spend in the woodwind shop listening to all 50
> : that they had in that day...
>
> Yes, crooks make a world of difference. I believe that the type of crook
> used in France, at least at the turn of the century, facilitated the
> performance of high passages.
>
> David
>
>
Hmm.. I am a bassoonist and I feel pretty safe saying that in general the
range has gotten bigger over the years. Donald Erb told me that the 2 contra-
bassoonists that he wrote the duets for could play the Rite a sounding pitch!
(thats +1 octave over the high Es) for bassoon. I have friends who play to
g2 (on the top of the treble staff) and even high, high c3 (good flute range)
But as a bassoonist I must say:
NEVER WRITE THESE NOTES UNLESS YOU INTEND TO PAY ME REALLY BIG, BIG,BIG
BUCKS *AND* WILL HANG AROUND AFTER THE CONCERT FOR 2 WKS TO HELP ME RECOVER.
George Bogatko
>something while sitting at my keyboard - something I can play. I > compose
I don't have a keyboard hooked to my setup, an AWE board mounted in
a 486. I think what I have produced has been better for it. When you
are forced to think about every note you are putting down on your
e-paper, the results are different.
I have had very good success entering stuff in the piano roll view of
cakewalk. I think it's because my thoughts are not confined to what
I can physically play, rather to what makes good musical sense regardless
of whether or not I can personally play it on a keyboard.
GB
Boudewijn
(m...@alumni.caltech.edu) wrote on Re: Using MIDI to learn composition
>
> Or do you really think they are problemsof similar magnitude? It
> seems to me that somebody with inspiration and a modicum of technique,
> having used only MIDI, would be blown away the first time they heard
> good acoustic music. Maybe I'm wrong...
Isn't it rather probable that everyone uses their syntesizer to imitate
acoustic music (through lack of live performers, or whatever), would have
hear good acoustic music before starting composing...
--
Boudewijn Rempt
A.C. Krusemanstraat 57
2032 HE Haarlem
The Netherlands
+31-23-354918
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bsarempt/
Boudewijn
> These tools (pianos and MIDI) aid composition - they won't do the
work
> for you.
>
> Andy.
Always excepting people into algorithmic composing and suchlike, nobody
ever claimed that they were anything other than tools. Most people here
seem to argue that even as tools they are bad (making you soft, a real
man uses a real chisel to hammer his notes into real rock! Even a
fountain pen can spoil you.)
Boudewijn
(idea...@news.dorsai.org) wrote on Re: Using MIDI to learn composition
<snip>
> The amazing thing is that MIDI is the tool most composers have dreamed of
> for years. It allows playback from a screen showing music notation;
> realization of the fastest musics, etc... When I first got my MIDI rig,
> I was writing my MFA thesis piece and bringing in music to show my
> teacher. There was this one section of music that she especially liked.
> In the end it was the 5-10 measures which she said were the absolute
> finest part of the piece. At the time I thought this is just too weird.
> She's picked out the 10 measures I wrote when my computer was on the
> fritz; when I just sat down one day with a pencil and paper. I later
> told her that that was the case and she just smiled.... she said in her
> Polish accent, "You should use computers to write computer music and
> that's it."
>
I guess she she used her biro solely to write biro prose?
Matthew H. Fields
Boudewijn <bo...@rempt.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>Isn't it rather probable that everyone uses their syntesizer to imitate
>acoustic music (through lack of live performers, or whatever), would have
>hear good acoustic music before starting composing...
You would think so.
But my experience has been that for most people it isn't so.
This is why so many people sequence something delightful
for synthesizer, and then are surprised and shocked when the
learn that live players don't sound like that, and can't play that anyhow.
Matthew H. Fields
>ever claimed that they were anything other than tools. Most people here
>seem to argue that even as tools they are bad (making you soft, a real
>man uses a real chisel to hammer his notes into real rock! Even a
>fountain pen can spoil you.)
Mr. Rempt,
I think you're lying.
Nobody ever argued that.
If you think they did, please
quote them where they did.
It seems to me you're having fun making a flamewar where there isn't one.
Now I'd argue that MIDI as a "tool" for training a beginner to write
for live players is a lot like driving a golf ball with garden shears.
Sure, both a golf club and garden shears are userful tools.
David Horne
[etc.]
: Hmm.. I am a bassoonist and I feel pretty safe saying that in general the
: range has gotten bigger over the years. Donald Erb told me that the 2 contra-
: bassoonists that he wrote the duets for could play the Rite a sounding pitch!
: (thats +1 octave over the high Es) for bassoon. I have friends who play to
: g2 (on the top of the treble staff) and even high, high c3 (good flute range)
: But as a bassoonist I must say:
: NEVER WRITE THESE NOTES UNLESS YOU INTEND TO PAY ME REALLY BIG, BIG,BIG
: BUCKS *AND* WILL HANG AROUND AFTER THE CONCERT FOR 2 WKS TO HELP ME RECOVER.
This is interesting from a performance point of view. Now that
bassoonists are so adept at playing the opening of the Rite, the effect
tends to be one of a rather elegant cor-anglais-like solo than of the
rather strained ('pain of birth'?) idea which I think was closer to the
original intention. Do you agree with that?
David
Unclejack
>
> > FIRST the composer has to learn to be a composer. (It doesn't
> > matter how) THEN they can sit under the tree and write.
> > Just doesn't work in reverse order, no matter how much we (both)
> > wish it.
> So it seems we agreed.
>
> Guido
I don't believe it.
Somebody actually commented on this subject without benefit of
a hacksaw, a bludgeon and three hair-splitting knives???
How'd they get in this group?
Warren Stringer
<m...@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
Michael P. Mossey wrote:
> Jeff Harrington wrote:
> > she said in her Polish accent, "
> > You should use computers to write computer music and that's it."
>
> away from the keyboard. I'm not good at it yet, but today I wrote
> about four measures away from the keyboard, took it to my piano
> module, and I was blown away. I can't wait to try it on an acoustic
> piano.
An advantage to writing music with pencil and paper is
that you can do it out in the world--away from the ambient noise
of computer fans and 60 cycle hum. Perhaps translate what's in
your head directly into a language that others can understand.
An advantage with midi is the ability to explore new ideas
quickly. Perhaps discover new terrain that your head wouldn't
generate on its own.
An advantage with analog instruments is the ability to
understand the basic elements of sound--Perhaps your head
can draw a picture of whats happening to an unfolding timbre.
An advantage to working with musicians in front of an audience
is the richness of human contact--probably the most intoxicating
drug in existance.
Perhaps the best way to learn how to compose is to use the
tools and form the connections that you absolutely *love*
beyond all things--where you're constantly wondering: "where
did all the time go." Because the time spent on developing
unique voice is never wasted.
\^/
Ken Moore
ho...@fas.harvard.edu "David Horne" writes:
>This is interesting from a performance point of view. Now that
>bassoonists are so adept at playing the opening of the Rite, the effect
>tends to be one of a rather elegant cor-anglais-like solo than of the
>rather strained ('pain of birth'?) idea which I think was closer to the
>original intention. Do you agree with that?
Somebody (was it Stravinsky himself?) suggested that the opening should
be transposed up a tone every decade, to maintain the strained effect.
--
Ken Moore (K...@hpsl.demon.co.uk)
KEITH K HARDWICK
> This is interesting from a performance point of view. Now that
> bassoonists are so adept at playing the opening of the Rite, the effect
> tends to be one of a rather elegant cor-anglais-like solo than of the
> rather strained ('pain of birth'?) idea which I think was closer to the
> original intention. Do you agree with that?
>
> David
> Very true, most bassoonists play the rite like a love song--very legatto and
smooth and effortless
And that's probably not what Stravinsky wanted. BUT...
look at it from our pt of view. Listeners think you're Great if you play it
effortlessly but if I showed up at a rehersal and played like I was giving
birth --I'd need unemployment. Yes, most good bassoonists have been playing
this since our junior yr of college. And it is hard!
Matthew H. Fields
Hmmm, I think the music in the bassoon solo stands up to being done well.
I've heard one performance in which the player deliberately "flubbed" the
first note by getting into it via a subtone, but basically, even played
sweetly, it sounds strained on bassoon, to me. Now if somebody
actually _were- to play it on oboe, that'd be a different thing.
Timothy Kelly
The only rule in composing is to use whatever works for you.
If thats midi fine, if its a degree in composition, fine.
There are just as many bad degreed composers as there are bad midi
composers.
As many have stated here, midi just provides a way to hear pieces as
you are working on them, and when they are finished. Also, a nice way to
share pieces with others.
You still have to go through the same creative steps, whether its
with paper and pen, or midi. Get the ideas, and then develop them into a
finished piece.
Happy Composing,
Timothy Kelly
MidiVox
--
MidiVox-Worlds 1st Voice to Midi Converter. Real Time. No Delays.
Hum a Bass, Croon a Sax, Scat a Horn, Scream a Guitar, Rap some
Drums, Sing a Cello.
Become a Human Sequencer, Human Vocoder, Human Breath Controller.
AES "Best in Show." EM "Editors Choice." " MidiVox Roars."
Keyboard.
Steve Isaacs
> >>>language, etc) is widespread and correlates to the large number of
> >>>hacks in every field?
> .....
> >>>A hack is someone who uses a
> >>>brand new tool in the exact way that thay used some older, completely
> >>>different tool....
...
>
> The arguments I've heard so far have limited validity, and even then
> only within the academic realm. I am sure that you and other prof's
> have no trouble getting students and various players to demo techniques
> and instr. ranges. I've heard this same argument over and over from
>
> FIRST the composer has to learn to be a composer. (It doesn't matter how)
> THEN they can sit under the tree and write.
Woooaaaa .... DeJa Vu!!!
It seems that I once read about a similar argument that was (maybe still
is) raging around the turn of the century. Change the language and
the technologies being discussed and the net is the same. This past
argument related to photography versus oil painting... Today? (maybe
I'm asking for it but...) It is widely recognized that photography is
it's own medium and --yes-- is frequently used as a tool to more quickly
capture the scene that will eventually become the oil painting
(ohmygawd!). Strange, many of the same rules of composition apply for
either.
Steve
(nope, I'm not a composer -- just one of those MIDI wannabes -- REALLY.)
Chester Jankowski
<Tools...@eznet.com> wrote:
> It seems that I once read about a similar argument that was (maybe still
> is) raging around the turn of the century. Change the language and
> the technologies being discussed and the net is the same. This past
> argument related to photography versus oil painting... Today? (maybe
> I'm asking for it but...) It is widely recognized that photography is
> it's own medium and --yes-- is frequently used as a tool to more quickly
> capture the scene that will eventually become the oil painting
> (ohmygawd!).
Haven't you heard? We don't do oil painting anymore--we now have a
PhotoShop filter for that.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Chester Jankowski jank...@blues.epas.utoronto.ca
Music Graduate Students' Association University of Toronto
An idea whose time has come: Karaoke Busking
Matthew H. Fields
I think the difference today is that millions of people have
cameras. Therefore, ownership of a camera is no longer considered
necessary and sufficient to make one a visual artist.
Could you imagine your Uncle Bert demanding that space next to
Ansel Adams be allocated in the Louvre for his vacation pictures
of his blurry thumb?
Have camera, must be a great artist. Anybody who says otherwise must
be anti-photography. Anybody who still bothers painting, learning to see,
thinking about lighting and composition etc. is obviously stuck merely
immitating last century's masters.
Love it.
Red herring all around.
Have MIDI, must be a great composer.
Have New Mini Tower, must be a computer scientist.
Have spraycan, must be a poet.
Back to my query: it seems to me this attitude is pretty darned
widespread, infects every field, and correlates to the prevalence of hacks.
JIM LYNCH
Once upon a time, CRAIG WESTON said:
CW> What I've tried to do in these situations is simultaneously recruit
CW> performers *and* a presenting organization who will pay them. What
CW> the composer does is all the leg work, getting the two parties
CW> together, etc. The presenting organization will often appreciate
CW> having the composer assume some of this burden (especially if it
CW> includes progam & program note preparation, publicity, etc.)
This is no different than what the composer had to do in Beethoven's
time, for example, according to what I've read recently. For the premiere
of his 9th, if you wanted tickets, you went to his house, and plunked
your money down on his kitchen table.
* RM 1.3 02710 * jim....@moondog.com // CIS:71210,2354 // fido 1:278/230
John Fitch
suggest one goes about getting a performance? I can see no
likelihood, so I use a computer to generate the sounds.
Actually I do not use MIDI, but rather direct synthesis. It does
point teh imagination at a certain type of sounds and compositions,
but at least I can get to hear themm, even if only in the privacy of
my sitting room, with an audience of two (the cat usually walks out,
but then she does that to Birtwhistle as well).
==John ff
Richard Mix
: If one is not at a University with a music department, how do you
: suggest one goes about getting a performance? I can see no
: likelihood, so I use a computer to generate the sounds.
What? You dont know any musicians? Get to know your local
performers and _write for them_. Most will be delighted by the
attention, especially if you can fill a spot on a program with a
companion piece to, for example, Schuetz' Absalom calling for Bass, 4
trombones and organ, or using the solo horn and tam-tams that Birtwhistle
substitutes for continuo.
Richard Mix
MSHATTUCK
MIDI style. I have a music background but want more interactive
compositional stuff to learn. Anyone have any leads?