# Midi compositions, acoustic samples & what can really be performed.



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Crudblud and I had a discussion re: Pieces realized via midi using acoustic instrument samples.

This is the topical question:

Would listeners (including 'the music establishment') consider pieces using electronic samples of acoustic instrument _which go beyond the limits of what is possible for the instrument and player(s)_ as objectionable on any number of fronts?

Ex. There are already a number of sets of less than conventional sounds from the acoustic instruments with which we are well familiar. Where some winds have an 'open' lowest possible pitch, there are also available pedal tones below that, possible by changing embouchure. Some wind instruments (winds) are capable of 'multi-phonics,' i.e. more than one pitch, a combination of fingering, embouchure control and bringing out less than usual harmonics. These are all in the category of advanced playing techniques, where we already have an array of sounds from acoustic instruments formerly not dreamed possible.

[One example of the not possible, The reed woodwinds have 'hot spots' where certain intervals are physically impossible to play in rapid tremolo, etc. With midi, those hot spots are eliminated, and a rapid tremolo not possible on the instrument is easily realized. Ditto for certain double-stops on strings (two strings, an interval played together.) Concert Pedal Harps (the standard in most people's inner eye) are not 'chromatic' instruments and are very difficult to 'comply' with when writing for them. There are many more like limits for the various instruments.]

When it comes to mixed acoustic instruments, winds, strings, brass, etc. I believe our present _expectations_ are quite different from the non-limits possibilities which midi can deliver.

I would imagine the average listener who is unaware of these physical limits would not object, or be less concerned, if they heard a pitch from a Concert C flute far lower than that instrument could actually produce.

So.... what your thoughts as to a piece being so realized, beyond the capacity of the instruments and virtuoso players, as being 'legitimate.' (One argument pro -- it exists, sounds well, ergo...)

I would add there is already an accepted tradition of player piano, whether older piano rolls of transcriptions of orchestral works where what comes out of just one piano is clearly the result of overdubbing, which in reality might take more than two pianos and far more than two (multiple) players to realize, or Leon Nancarrow's player piano etudes as but one case in point.

I think there might be a very different take on the value or interest of the 'unreal' midi realized piece on the part of actual performing musicians, and wonder myself if a piece for acoustic instruments played from samples which cannot be played other than via midi would ever be considered 'legitimate' by the musical establishment, or, for example, ever be considered for any number of the prestigious music prizes.

What anyone thinks will be a matter of opinion -- but a bit of reasonable argument backing up the opinion is requested 

P.s. Before it is brought into play, I should add this particular supposition _excludes the purely electronic generated (non-acoustic mimic) based sound palette._


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

I think it's perfectly acceptable, and I quite enjoy it. Why have such loyalty for inanimate objects? It's all tools for the enthusiasms we have for sounds. Taking instruments with strong limitations and stretching them to achieve a certain ambience is a sign of intellectual and pragmatic evolution to me.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Well, this went down well with audiences...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

brianvds said:


> Well, this went down well with audiences...


This is far beyond several parsecs away from anything near the topic of the OP


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Well, if you ask me, I think player piano is downright gross.

Prime example:






Sure, perhaps player piano can be ok sometimes, but when a piece _flaunts _its ability not to be played by a human, I think it's disgusting. Just from an aesthetic point of view. Besides its "mechanicalness" it also just becomes "hypercomplex" to the point of noise. Maybe someone here can show me other examples that are more interesting.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Well, if you ask me, I think player piano is downright gross.
> 
> Prime example:
> 
> ...


Iono...I thought the example you gave was pretty freakin' awesome.

What is disgusting about it?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

violadude said:


> Iono...I thought the example you gave was pretty freakin' awesome.
> 
> What is disgusting about it?


Maybe it is an acquired taste 
James Tenney ~ Spectral Canon for Conlon Nancarrow




Conlon Nancarrow:
Study No. 7




Study No. 11




Currently with Midi, dynamics, pedaling (any and all of the three of 'em) are part of it, where pre-midi, other than some rather exclusive Duo-Art player pianos, this was not possible.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I was going to suggest some Conlon Nancarrow too. His studies are pretty awesome.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

violadude said:


> I was going to suggest some Conlon Nancarrow too. His studies are pretty awesome.


Yep, some are even (gasp) rather 'beautiful.'

*meanwhile, (nudge nudge) back to Midi renderings using only acoustic instrumental samples but stretched beyond the capacities of the instruments and players thereof....*


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Well, if you ask me, I think player piano is downright gross.
> 
> Prime example:
> 
> ...


Well if you happen to pluck out of all there is one stellar example of *HAMelin and Cheese*, and I knew only that, I might tend to agree with you


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

> Would listeners (including 'the music establishment') consider pieces using electronic samples of acoustic instrument which go beyond the limits of what is possible for the instrument and player(s) as objectionable on any number of fronts?


To me it's no different than someone creating a new instrument that extends the capabilities of an existing instrument. Might as well object to the existence of any flute that isn't a carved bone.

I suppose in visual terms the concert experience would be less interesting if the only action involves someone clicking "play" on a computer, but on recordings, I can't see that it would make a difference.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

I think the OP contains several issues.
The first one is: Who are the musical establishment and do they matter?
My answer would be: Whoever they are, they don't really matter. At least not to the composer who just requires an audience for his/her/it's work. I say _it's_ because if the instrument or performer can be artificial, why should not the composer? But that's a whole other debate.
If one is after_ realism_ then one usually sticks to what is possible on any given instrument. If one is creating a finished work for experiencing directly as opposed to a 'mock-up' for eventual realisation by real players, then anything goes. Why be restricted? 
It is not for the 'listener' to know an instruments capability. It is for the composer/orchestrator and performer.
Personally, as someone who uses both sampled and real instruments, I would go for real every time if the budget permitted. Even sampled Moogs and Oberheims which themselves are electronic instruments, fall short of the depth of sonority and subtlety of the real thing, IMO.
Many orchestral sample libraries such as VSL do not contain samples of notes which are off the register of the instruments. This, I feel is good as it forces me to not be lazy letting that violin run down to an F-sharp instead of solving the problem of where/how to let the violas take over.

In the end though, all that matters is what reaches the listener's ear and whether or not it works for them. Bad and unrealistic attempts to simulate real instruments seldom work for me but a soundscape that uses samples in any madcap and unconventional way, with or without FX, may sound great. It just depends on the context.


----------



## Guest (Apr 12, 2014)

I think this is a question that only musicians could come up with. As listeners we are very accustomed by now to hearing sounds which are not naturally produced. It has been going on for decades. As performers you may have issues with music you can't perform.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

BPS said:


> I think this is a question that only musicians could come up with. As listeners we are very accustomed by now to hearing sounds which are not naturally produced. It has been going on for decades. As performers you may have issues with music you can't perform.


Thank you for "reporting in"... this is pretty near to exactly what I thought most non-musician listeners would think (and non-musicians are the overwhelming majority of the audience), while I would still like to hear from a few more of 'youse guys.'

Thanks again.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Aren't standard instruments themselves a morphology of natural sounds? Electronics are just the evolution of that.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Music has always changed with technology. It'll be ok if that continues.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

PetrB said:


> This is far beyond several parsecs away from anything near the topic of the OP


Oh? I thought that was pretty much exactly the kind of thing the OP was talking about. If not, I have not the vaguest clue what the thread is about and will shut up and just read.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

My feeling is that the sampled instrument is an instrument unto itself. We can say it is modelled on _this instrument_ or _that instrument_, but we cannot say, with any truth, that it is _this_ or _that_. A problem I encounter in my own music, or at least the publishing thereof, is what to call these instruments: if I say I've written a duo for piano and violin, but then I present it using instruments which are not a piano and a violin, then am I deceiving the audience, or is this simply the most convenient way of addressing my use of instruments which are based upon, but stand apart from, the instruments named? It is convenient and deceptive, I have to admit I would rather lazily adopt terminology relevant to other families of instruments than risk sounding like an engineer aboard the USS Enterprise. To say the piece is written for "computer" is also deceptive, since the computer is not operating as an instrument but as a musician. This is not a concern for the vast majority of people who compose using MIDI, they're just using it as a mock-up, a test stage, their duo for piano and violin is intended to be played on a piano and a violin, but for someone who works with "MIDI qua MIDI" and is interested in exploring that field, how exactly to present new works is a serious issue.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Well, if you ask me, I think player piano is downright gross.
> 
> Prime example:
> 
> ...


Pop goes the Weasel? Ha ha haa! How about some *Conlon Nancarrow? *Elliott Carter, Frank Zappa, and me makes three.


----------



## Guest (Apr 12, 2014)

@Crudblud: maybe "simulated violin and piano" ?

Any term is gonna be a bit awkward, like "prepared piano". You could come up with three or four choices and make a poll here! It may be more comfortable to use a term which a majority of TC poll participants feel is reasonable.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> My feeling is that the sampled instrument is an instrument unto itself. We can say it is modelled on _this instrument_ or _that instrument_, but we cannot say, with any truth, that it is _this_ or _that_. A problem I encounter in my own music, or at least the publishing thereof, is what to call these instruments: if I say I've written a duo for piano and violin, but then I present it using instruments which are not a piano and a violin, then am I deceiving the audience, or is this simply the most convenient way of addressing my use of instruments which are based upon, but stand apart from, the instruments named? It is convenient and deceptive, I have to admit I would rather lazily adopt terminology relevant to other families of instruments than risk sounding like an engineer aboard the USS Enterprise. To say the piece is written for "computer" is also deceptive, since the computer is not operating as an instrument but as a musician. This is not a concern for the vast majority of people who compose using MIDI, they're just using it as a mock-up, a test stage, their duo for piano and violin is intended to be played on a piano and a violin, but for someone who works with "MIDI qua MIDI" and is interested in exploring that field, how exactly to present new works is a serious issue.


That is simple and already a conventional standard usage, _Midi_ is in the title as a descriptor, ex: acoustic piano + sample = _*for Piano and Midi Violin*_. If both, _*for (Midi) Piano and Violin*_. No further mention then needed of instrumental limits crossed, samples slightly or more than morphed with another instrumental timbre or filtered, etc. unless you want to comment upon those in the liner notes. Nor would I ever bother to 'explain' _Midi_; if people think your piece has something to do with the South of France, they will probably figure out it does not, and may look up the term. It really needs no explanation anymore than do 'computer, synthesizer,' etc.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Well, so the people here have spoken. 

You might want to keep in mind that the "I must have my Beethoven" crowd isn't very well represented here.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Crudblud said:


> My feeling is that the sampled instrument is an instrument unto itself. We can say it is modelled on _this instrument_ or _that instrument_, but we cannot say, with any truth, that it is _this_ or _that_.


In a sense a sampled instrument is not an instrument in it's own right but a recording of a real instrument. A sampled violin is made up of many recordings of a real person playing a real instrument. The more detailed and numerous the recordings, the more 'authentic' sounding the sampled violin. The best ones contain many thousands of samples and are several gigabytes of data.
Each and every note is recorded at dozens of different dynamic levels (loudness) and for each different articulation (legato, staccato, pizzicato etc.)
A real violin is a mechanism with which the performer can create, first hand, sound waves of a very particular character, frequency balance and volume etc. So the midi Violin can be thought of as a _re_-creation of the original instrument.
There is also the fact that the midi protocol can address only 128 levels of data for each parameter which means that there cannot be more than 128 recordings of 'loudness' for each note. 128 is a lot but is it as many as exist in a real violin? Therefore there is for now, a compromise.
A purely electronic synthesizer creates sound waves from scratch like a real instrument but cannot output the sound except through a speaker. Since the sound was created in the electronic domain, there is not so much of a compromise in sonority as there is when forcing an acoustic instrument through a speaker. If you think about a piano, which is a notoriously difficult instrument to record and to sample, it is because when you are in a room with a piano being played, the whole huge piece of wood and metal vibrates and moves the air from all directions at once.
None of the above has any bearing on what the composer might use as a resource. Live, recorded, sampled or electronic. It's all available to mix and match a the composer sees fit.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

PetrB said:


> That is simple and already a conventional standard usage, _Midi_ is in the title as a descriptor, ex: acoustic piano + sample = _*for Piano and Midi Violin*_. If both, _*for (Midi) Piano and Violin*_. No further mention then needed of instrumental limits crossed, samples slightly or more than morphed with another instrumental timbre or filtered, etc. unless you want to comment upon those in the liner notes. Nor would I ever bother to 'explain' _Midi_; if people think your piece has something to do with the South of France, they will probably figure out it does not, and may look up the term. It really needs no explanation anymore than do 'computer, synthesizer,' etc.


Maybe I'm too presumptuous, but it seems that a good many people would be put off be seeing words like "simulated" and "MIDI" in that information, and that's not necessarily a problem with the words themselves as the connotations of those words, at least in the case of the latter. The former, I think would be a disservice to the music, it's real music, not simulated, and the instruments are not simulating anything, but operating on their own terms. The question of terminology could probably last forever and is truthfully probably not worth worrying about, but it's still something that bothers all the same.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> In a sense a sampled instrument is not an instrument in it's own right but a recording of a real instrument. A sampled violin is made up of many recordings of a real person playing a real instrument. The more detailed and numerous the recordings, the more 'authentic' sounding the sampled violin. The best ones contain many thousands of samples and are several gigabytes of data.
> Each and every note is recorded at dozens of different dynamic levels (loudness) and for each different articulation (legato, staccato, pizzicato etc.)
> A real violin is a mechanism with which the performer can create, first hand, sound waves of a very particular character, frequency balance and volume etc. So the midi Violin can be thought of as a _re_-creation of the original instrument.
> There is also the fact that the midi protocol can address only 128 levels of data for each parameter which means that there cannot be more than 128 recordings of 'loudness' for each note. 128 is a lot but is it as many as exist in a real violin? Therefore there is for now, a compromise.
> A purely electronic synthesizer creates sound waves from scratch like a real instrument but cannot output the sound except through a speaker. Since the sound was created in the electronic domain, there is not so much of a compromise in sonority as there is when forcing an acoustic instrument through a speaker. If you think about a piano, which is a notoriously difficult instrument to record and to sample, it is because when you are in a room with a piano being played, the whole huge piece of wood and metal vibrates and moves the air from all directions at once.


I disagree. I think once the sounds of the violin become samples, those samples then form a library which leaves the notion of "violin" behind. It is not a recreation but a recontextualisation, and the context and manner of operation of the library are so far removed from the violin that to call the instrument a violin seems to me a complete misnomer. But again, it is a convenient misnomer, because the samples are understood to have originated from a violin.

I don't buy your argument against this library of samples being a real instrument, not only because I think the points you raise are immaterial to the legitimacy of such a library as an instrument, but also because they are incorrect. Yes, there are only 128 possible points of dynamic, but the difference between 75 and 76 on that scale is effectively imperceptible unless all 128 points of dynamic are individually sampled, which to my knowledge they never are because the memory footprint would simply be unreasonably large for our current technology, not to mention the expense of recording such a library would likely be infeasible for the company creating it and the retail price too high for most people who would want to buy it.

The point you raise about a physical body which vibrates you defeat yourself, the loudspeaker is the physical body, and I don't believe for one second that because the speaker was not created specifically for the instrument it is any less legitimate. I don't believe that there is a compromise, because the instrument, as we have established, is other than the source of the samples, it takes on a life of its own completely removed from that source, the two cannot realistically be compared because they are each operating through different means toward different ends.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> I disagree. I think once the sounds of the violin become samples, those samples then form a library which leaves the notion of "violin" behind.


That is philosophy or rationale which has nothing to do with what people hear. Like it or not, even the most advanced listener has a set of semiotic senses, ergo: _Violin_ and they see and expect to hear a violin -- within their most usual contextual expectations. The better the sample, the more convinced they are and hear and see that.

Taking that anywhere past its most extreme virtuosic limits, including what is possible on the acoustic instrument via advanced playing techniques _will not probably ruffle too many listener's expectations._ But to think they are thinking of it as "a recontextualization" of a fiddle... that is for you, and maybe has nothing really to do with the end result of what you write, either... you will go with it where you want, or as you think the music requires or directs, period.

Do be prepared if you have taken it far enough, that whether consciously or not any listener might know 'something is up.' Whatever they may think of it is not the point, but they will know they are no longer in 'violin territory,' and expecting them to disassociate "Violin" into "recontextualization" to free their thinking is I think expecting / presuming too much.

If the standard "Midi" descriptor bothers you, I would say simply stop thinking about it -- and use it, or don't.

IMO, it seems some of your concern over using the descriptor, i.e. that it may put people off, is perhaps nor more than anticipating that taking the sample far out of the reality of what it can perform might put people off. To use "Midi" as a descriptor actually cues the audience in -- prior hearing the work -- that they might then know to set aside their conventional expectations of what they normally expect when they are usually set up for "Violin."

If you're not at all worried about "what you do to and with _violin_, why worry about the other? "Prestige?" "Legitimacy?" Stop thinking about it. The piece, like all other pieces ever done, however rendered, must speak for itself.

ADD: P.s I cannot find the name or title of the piece, but Morton Subotnick wrote a piece, with a title, the following or sub-heading was "for Midi piano and _____." If it was good enough for a Pulitzer prize-winning composer, it is probably good enough for you


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Crudblud said:


> I disagree. I think once the sounds of the violin become samples, those samples then form a library which leaves the notion of "violin" behind. It is not a recreation but a recontextualisation, and the context and manner of operation of the library are so far removed from the violin that to call the instrument a violin seems to me a complete misnomer. *But again, it is a convenient misnomer, because the samples are understood to have originated from a violin.*


Either an instrument is a violin or it is not. If it is, one might wish to call a piece 'X for violin'. If it is not a violin then why make reference to a violin at all? You seem to be saying that a sampled violin is an instrument in it's own right but that you want to refer to the source of it's samples in the name. Why? Why not just call the piece 'X'? Why should a piece's title have to contain the word 'for'?
I'm not sure I understand what your worry is.

PS. I never said anything about legitimacy.
I hold two principles to be true in art. _The proof of the pudding is in the eating. _And, _The end justifies the means._


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

I'm sure quite desirable features of composing like this is you don't have to be so constricted by space, time, and other individuals temperaments. But you have the sounds of the world at your disposal, it's extraordinary. 

A neat little fact - Bayle invented what he called the Acousmonium, which is an 80-loudspeaker orchestra. You won't hear any opinions or complaints from them. They just do what you tell them.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

I think we are stretching this too much.

The samples/midi/etc. can indeed be considered as a new instrument or way of playing music, in a similar vein that the player piano. The name?... "composition for midi piano"/"composition for sampled piano"/"etc". This is standard terminology now. Boulez's _...explosant-fixe..._ is scored for "_MIDI-flute, chamber orchestra and electronics_".


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

aleazk said:


> I think we are stretching this too much.
> 
> The samples/midi/etc. can indeed be considered as a new instrument or way of playing music, in a similar vein that the player piano. The name?... "composition for midi piano"/"composition for sampled piano"/"etc". This is standard terminology now. Boulez's _...explosant-fixe..._ is scored for "_MIDI-flute, chamber orchestra and electronics_".


I think there is a difference. The midi-flute you refer to is a real-flute played by a flautist. It is equipped with a microphone and the signal fed into the computer to be manipulated and then output.
That is something quite different from triggering samples of a flute from a keyboard or any other midi controller for that matter.

Like a rock gutarist's pedal board as opposed to a sample of a rock guitar played by a midi controller.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> I think there is a difference. The midi-flute you refer to is a real-flute played by a flautist. It is equipped with a microphone and the signal fed into the computer to be manipulated and then output.
> That is something quite different from triggering samples of a flute from a keyboard or any other midi controller for that matter.
> 
> Like a rock gutarist's pedal board as opposed to a sample of a rock guitar played by a midi controller.


Yes, that's right. Anyway, I more or less used the example to show that the term "midi" is indeed used by famous composers.

I'm sure there are more "to the point" examples, like the one mentioned by PetrB, since it's a quite natural idea. I would be surprised if nobody came up with it in all this time. The only difference with the player piano is that the sounds are produced by a computer once the score or roll is introduced, call it a "digital player piano". The advantage is that you can have now "player violins, flutes, etc."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Yes, that's right. Anyway, I more or less used the example to show that the term "midi" is indeed used by famous composers.
> 
> I'm sure there are more "to the point" examples, like the one mentioned by PetrB, since it's a quite natural idea. I would be surprised if nobody came up with it in all this time. The only difference with the player piano is that the sounds are produced by a computer once the score or roll is introduced, call it a "digital player piano". The advantage is that you can have now "player violins, flutes, etc."


This issue of sound sources and naming them as used in a piece is all a bit of a tempest in a teapot
Alvin Lucier ~ _Nothing is real_, for piano, amplified teapot, recorder and mini-sound system:





I.e. listing the means of the sound sources, whatever they are, _*is* the tradition_. 
Debussy ~ _Sonata for flute, viola and harp_ is no more or less a to do than
Alvin Lucier ~ _Nothing is real_, for piano, amplified teapot, recorder and mini-sound system.

All the way through, naming the organ, a flute, a violin -- if one needs to go there at all, is also naming a highly synthetic construct made to the purpose of producing sound. Violins are not a fruit or vegetable, but 'music making / generating machines,' built to be operated by people The organ could, without any stretch, be called _the first synthesizer._

The tradition just names the sound sources -- simples.

[I see no reason that something which has worked so well for so long, and which so readily accommodates naming more recently invented sound sources, needs any ponderous thought in either the philosophical or linguistics departments ]


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

You can always just play a cactus with a feather. I'm serious.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> You can always just play a cactus with a feather. I'm serious.


But there ya go, _Arthur, for feather, amplified cactus and other organic matter._

But hey, dude, one day you're Serious, another day you're Sirius. Which is it -- or is it more a matter of 
"Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't" ???


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Well, I've certainly had my share of both Almond Joys and Mounds.


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

PetrB, obviously you are right concerning the way we name instrumentation. To me that seems like the simple part of the question.

What about the more interesting question of human performer vs. sequenced performer? Many MIDI compositions are made by a human playing a digital keyboard so the issue isn't really human vs. machine. It's more about immediacy, I think -- human in direct unmediated contact with the instrument, an instrument the human knows extremely well, hearing the sound as it is produced and responding/modifying the sound in real time to match the desired sound. A sequenced performance is made at several degrees of remove. I like hearing both kinds of performances but I think they are very different (and while I enjoy certain machine-performed works very much, I admit to a strong preference for human-performed).
EDIT: I meant to add that my favorite Crudblud pieces are among the machine-performed works that I enjoy very much.

For me that's also related to detail. Let's say an excellent flautist is learning an eight-measure phrase. Much thought will go into each note: how to control the breath, how to shape the phrase, where to breathe, what sort of articulation to put on the beginning of the note, etc. etc. It is possible to get into that level of detail when sequencing, but at some point, doesn't the person doing the sequencing basically have to BE a highly trained flautist in order to understand what the issues are and how to address them?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hreichgott said:


> PetrB, obviously you are right concerning the way we name instrumentation. To me that seems like the simple part of the question.
> 
> What about the more interesting question of human performer vs. sequenced performer? Many MIDI compositions are made by a human playing a digital keyboard so the issue isn't really human vs. machine. It's more about immediacy, I think -- human in direct unmediated contact with the instrument, an instrument the human knows extremely well, hearing the sound as it is produced and responding/modifying the sound in real time to match the desired sound. A sequenced performance is made at several degrees of remove. I like hearing both kinds of performances but I think they are very different (and while I enjoy certain machine-performed works very much, I admit to a strong preference for human-performed).
> 
> For me that's also related to detail. Let's say an excellent flautist is learning an eight-measure phrase. Much thought will go into each note: how to control the breath, how to shape the phrase, where to breathe, what sort of articulation to put on the beginning of the note, etc. etc. It is possible to get into that level of detail when sequencing, but at some point, doesn't the person doing the sequencing basically have to BE a highly trained flautist in order to understand what the issues are and how to address them?


Excellent post, Madame!

That person inputting the midi flute track, if wanting all those desirable musical elements of 'personal expression' (including why one flautist playing the same thing on the same axe will always sound different from the other) must then know all the musical aspects, and how to interject them into the midi 'performance.'

But just as it is pretty certain Debussy did not play the flute,




nor Jacques Ibert, 




nor Lucas Foss




or Berio





It is patently clear that many composers do not play any and all of the instruments for which they write, and write for them well many do. What led to their ability to do so was certainly study, of orchestration itself, the repertoire for the instrument, its capability and limits, study of and listening to a ton of scores and repertoire in general, all then assimilated and in play when they sit down to write.

It also more than helps to be connected to an active community of performers who are advanced, and with whom many a sage composer _will consult with directly_ whenever they have the least question or doubt. It is the sum total of the cumulative knowledge and memory of having studied and listened to all those scores, 'the sound' the instrument makes, intimately knowing what comes most readily to the instrument, the speaking strengths in its various ranges, which all come into play when writing for it.

(But then, both you and I are most used to expecting that part to go to a real player 

It takes a similar virtuosity to manipulate a midi track to become 'convincing' of a virtual reality. Another dynamic of the OP is very much about 'what the instrument does not or can not normally do.' There, I would still urge upon the composer working with that to keep in mind the listener still needs to be 'convinced' of something, whether that goes very much with, or against, the natural behavior and expected. What I (perhaps being sentimental and hippy-dippyish) still miss in even the best midi performance is not just that immediacy (and intimacy) a performer has in real time while playing their instrument, but as well that same immediacy and intimacy in real time _which happens between and among all the performers playing in any ensemble, duo or massive orchestra and chorus_ Sigh, there really is _nothing like live,_ and I would include a live musician working the knobs and sliders of a non-keyboard synthesizer as part of an ensemble right along with that!

There are midi keyboards which allow 'aftertouch,' i.e. contrary to normal piano action, you can slighty press the key when it is already depressed, and get the dynamic swell on a note which is impossible via normal piano keyboard action. There, you still have to be some sort of decent and 'reflexive' player, keyboard skills plus this additional skill of tweak of touch, to readily input that via playing at a keyboard.

The midi composer who is literally drawing every note and musical element in has a serious labor intensive job. The amplitude of each note, dynamic contouring of phrase, articulation (via placement and length) and creating what sound like a _luftpause_ - a breath between a phrase -- for winds, and a lift or stop of the bow for strings, etc. is massively time consuming.

As 'a keyboard player' with a bit of technique still in me, it is infinitely easier to input the notes via playing at the keyboard. Still, without the aftertouch sensitive keyboard (which will feel forever a bit alien to a pianist with accustomed decades with that instrument), there is a lot of tedious donkey-work drawing in of other dynamics.

I am certainly as keen as you are on the factor of the immediacy which is so much a part of making music happen. Wherever possible, I advocate live performers, even in a mix of electro-acoustic music. The collective skills, concentration and on-the-spot reflexive responses they give each other being so much more than the sum of their individual parts. (yeah, that's waxing mystical but anyone who has had the experience, even in a more than funky non-professional church choir, or band, etc. knows that is really what does happen.)

The rest of some aesthetic argument, whether this is to evoke in the listener a live player or something we might _call_ "unreal," is not only a matter I think for endless _theoretic_ debate, but very much up to both composer and listener as to what is ultimately deemed 'successful,' in what they want to write and what the listener hears.


----------

